I am a Joe Manchin Democrat

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You're way into the weeds of a random example. And sometimes it's not the lesser of two evils. Another example: One group says "decriminalize homosexuality". Another group says "Put gay people in prison for life". What's the good compromise?

First, it is not a random example, it's a crystal clear reality.

There are 1,925 (nonstop) flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco per week, averaging 275 per day.


That's three quarters of a million flying per week.
There would be more if we had the capacity.
The rest do the five hour slog from L.A. to San Francisco and number well over a million.

Second, I don't know what you think is proven when trying to compare a transportation artery to a sexual orientation, but it's not apples and oranges,
it's wolves and tangerines.

One is about punishing people for their orientation, the other is an argument in favor of legalizing what most people already do (driving fast on open areas of highway)
and making it safer and more efficient, and weeding out those who either don't have a capable vehicle or lack the necessary skills.

The fact is, we're finding it difficult to impossible to complete our original plan for high speed rail here in California, but HSR or no, the
long and sometimes interminable grind of commuting between Los Angeles and San Francisco./Sacramento continues apace and is growing,
and there needs to be a way of cutting travel time between the two regions.

If you're suggesting that doing nothing is better than a compromise then fine, all you need to do is construct a reasonable argument as to why
doing nothing is the better idea. But remember, as you are constructing your argument, more and more drivers in California are also going the
hybrid/electric vehicle route, and as the number of electric vehicles grows, the technology advances and the carbon emissions drop.
At some point in the future parity or even numerical superiority will happen and most vehicles making such commutes won't be fossil fuel powered.

And if you're arguing safety, remember that people already drive very fast on that stretch of highway.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Afraid is a good word.

If for no other reason than the next Republican Congress / White House would be all about one thing and one thing only... revenge.

The longest chapter in "Think Big" by Donald Trump.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Trump is not in control. The Mercers, Murdochs, other RWE media owners and their "media personalities," writers, and G.O.P. politicians who've gone along for the ride, including Trump, created a monster that is certain it knows what it knows, which isn't much that is reliable or justifies the anger and suspicion mistaken for certainty.

The amazing thing is, if these groups and individuals can afford to pour this much money into creating this monstrosity it means they aren't being hurt by the amount, so it boils down to "they'd rather pay to create a monstrosity that destroys democracy" than pay to reinforce democracy and a healthy civilization.

So it is NOT about the money, it's about their hostility toward democracy...it's specifically about their hatred OF democracy.
You'll NEVER hear the argument: "If you force us to pay to destroy democracy, we'll take our money elsewhere"...you only hear: "If you force us to pay TAXES to strengthen democracy, we'll take our money elsewhere."
And the Pandora Papers and other similar document drops proves that many of them already ARE putting their money elsewhere anyway.
Such is their love of fascism.

The taxes aren't too high for them, they're easily paying MORE in campaign contributions and dark money donations than they would be in taxes.
They just abhor democracy and dream of dictatorial fascist theocracy, that's all.
It just boils down to, if they are required to play by the rules, they'd rather stand up, knock the board over and set it on fire and piss on the game pieces and hurl feces at the other players.

 

[post]

The amazing thing is, if these groups and individuals can afford to pour this much money into creating this monstrosity it means they aren't being hurt by the amount, so it boils down to "they'd rather pay to create a monstrosity that destroys democracy" than pay to reinforce democracy and a healthy civilization.

So it is NOT about the money, it's about their hostility toward democracy...it's specifically about their hatred OF democracy.
You'll NEVER hear the argument: "If you force us to pay to destroy democracy, we'll take our money elsewhere"...you only hear: "If you force us to pay TAXES to strengthen democracy, we'll take our money elsewhere."
And the Pandora Papers and other similar document drops proves that many of them already ARE putting their money elsewhere anyway.
Such is their love of fascism.

The taxes aren't too high for them, they're easily paying MORE in campaign contributions and dark money donations than they would be in taxes.
They just abhor democracy and dream of dictatorial fascist theocracy, that's all.
It just boils down to, if they are required to play by the rules, they'd rather stand up, knock the board over and set it on fire and piss on the game pieces and hurl feces at the other players.

The RWE oligarch take down of the U.S. seems only a half-step behind its success in Israel. It is loyal to no liberal democracy's flag.

At least 30 Russian oligarchs, it goes without saying they are at minimum responsive to Putin's "suggestions" because he could stop them from "emigrating" if they weren't, have taken Israeli citizenship in recent years. One lure is a ten-year, no-taxes" incentive law.

"The Iron Dome" was fully paid for thanks to U.S. gov. subsidy, a hand-out to the Israeli gov. and U.S. defense contractor, Raytheon. But even that is not enough and instead of demanding that Israel approach these Russian tax refugees and other Israeli citizen billionaires for defense contributions, say, $25 million each as an alternative to U.S. legislators borrowing another billion from our grandchildren, this is what has been happening in the past ten days.

Consider that Sheldon Adelson's widow could put up this money, instead of spending it on the partisan, anti-democratic agenda you just described.

Consider that Rep. DeLauro is very close to Speaker Pelosi and is the longtime sponsor of the recently passed child tax credit,
is only regarded as a moderate because of examples like this....

House passes $1B for Israel's Iron Dome after progressive dustup

The funding was stripped from a stopgap funding bill and scheduled for its own vote after liberals protested.

www.politico.com

House passes $1B for Israel's Iron Dome after progressive dustup​

The funding was stripped from a stopgap funding bill and scheduled for its own vote after liberals (AOC & the Squad) protested.
By Andrew Desiderio
09/23/2021
"The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a bill to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, just two days after it was pulled from a government funding package over objections from progressive lawmakers. Moderate Democrats had pushed for a standalone vote on the Iron Dome funding, which totals $1 billion, amid an uproar over leadership’s decision to strip it from a stopgap spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown at the end of the month.

..The bill passed by a vote of 420-9, with eight Democrats and one Republican voting against it, plus two Democrats voting present. But for the majority party, the episode served to further expose the its internal strife over the U.S.-Israel relationship, with progressives demanding a policy doctrine that takes into account the plight of Palestinians and pushes back on Israel’s retaliatory offensives in Gaza.....

...“Let me repeat: This funding, as the bill language clearly states, is limited to a system that is entirely defensive,” House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said. “The legislation before us ensures that Israel can fully defend all its citizens, a necessary condition for lasting peace.”..."

The Iron Dome was already fully paid for and DeLauro and Pelosi bypassed all regular order committee deliberation steps to
bring this PoS to the House floor for a vote in record breaking time...

House passes $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome system in ...​

https://www.defensenews.com ›
Sep 23, 2021 — "The House passed legislation overwhelmingly to provide $1 billion to Israel to restock its Iron Dome short-range missile defense system just ..."

Continued...

 

[post]

So this is what "bi-partisanship" in the U.S. Capitol looks like.... instead of U.S. "progressives" suggesting quietly to the Israeli gov. that it simply ask 40 of its billionaires to interrupt their ten year tax break to give $25 million each to replenish the Iron Dome defense system instead of the grandchildren of U.S. residents having to borrow the billion dollar cost!

-snip-
09/23/2021 02:17 PM EDT
"The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a bill to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, just two days after it was pulled from a government funding package over objections from progressive lawmakers. Moderate Democrats had pushed for a standalone vote on the ....
..The bill passed by a vote of 420-9, with eight Democrats and one Republican voting against it, plus two Democrats voting present. But for the majority party, the episode served to further expose the its internal strife over the U.S.-Israel relationship, with progressives demanding a policy doctrine that takes into account the plight of Palestinians and pushes back on Israel’s retaliatory offensives in Gaza.....
-snip-
Continued...

Miriam Adelson becomes richest Israeli as COVID year boosts ...​

https://www.timesofisrael.com ›
Apr 7, 2021 — The 2021 Forbes list of the world's billionaires and richest people, ... She overtook Russian-Israeli oligarch Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea ...

The Top 30 Richest People in 2019 Israel, and Where They Get​

https://www.haaretz.com ›
Jun 19, 2019 — Here are the 30 richest people in Israel, according to Haaretz's 2019 ranking: 1. Miriam Adelson. Open gallery view. Miriam Adelson.

Transfer of Las Vegas Sands Shares Lifts Sheldon Adelson's ...​

https://www.casino.org ›
Jun 20, 2019 — A new addition to the list of Israel's mega-rich, Miriam Adelson, 73, ... Abramovich — a Russian oligarch who owns the English Premier ...

Russian oligarchs in Israel Welcome to the Promised Land​

https://www.economist.com › ... ›
Sep 17, 2015 — Last month the finance ministry tried to convince the cabinet to adopt its proposal to cancel a ten-year exemption from reporting foreign income ...

Chelsea owner Abramovich immigrates to Israel, becomes ...​

https://www.timesofisrael.com ›
May 28, 2018 — As a new citizen, Abramovich is exempt from taxes in Israel on income earned abroad for 10 years, and need not declare the sources of that ...

Putin's pet oligarch Roman Abramovich is now Israel's richest ...​

https://www.haaretz.com › opinion ›
Jun 1, 2018 — There is no reason to believe that Abramovich is interested in Israeli citizenship for any nefarious tax-evading reasons, but his seemingly lack ...

Abramovich is latest Russian oligarch to move to Israel​

https://apnews.com ›
May 29, 2018 — Israel grants automatic citizenship to anyone of Jewish descent. The Chelsea football club owner made the move after his British visa was not ...

 

[Craig234]

First, it is not a random example, it's a crystal clear reality.

It is a random example. I was making the point compromise isn't always a good idea, and randomly picked an example of thousands. As I said, you got into the weeds on it.

Second, I don't know what you think is proven when trying to compare a transportation artery to a sexual orientation, but it's not apples and oranges, it's wolves and tangerines.

Maybe the point that it was a random example.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It is a random example. I was making the point compromise isn't always a good idea, and randomly picked an example of thousands. As I said, you got into the weeds on it.



Maybe the point that it was a random example.

And I don't think that I even remotely "got into the weeds" at all, I was talking about specific real world examples based at least in part on experience as a resident of this area
AND also based on my own past experiences having to DO such commutes from time to time.
I used to travel up to SF on a regular basis from L.A. about eight to ten times a year.
I know the route, I know the commute time and I also know the difference between air travel and car travel because I've done both.
Truth is, you don't actually save all that much time OR MONEY going by air unless you deduct the travel time TO and FROM airports, and deduct
the time wasted WAITING to board and waiting to disembark and get OUT OF the airport once you land.
At most, you might save ONE HOUR over car travel, and if your car gets 30 mpg on the highway or better, you are actually LOSING money going by air.

Nothing about what I am describing is "in the weeds"...and such characterization as such is a bit of a cop-out, sorry.

 

[Craig234]

Nothing about what I am describing is "in the weeds"...and such characterization as such is a bit of a cop-out, sorry.

You are acting remarkably obsessively. It's hugely in the weeds, and the fact that it was a casual random example is going in one ear and out the other. It's not a cop out, there was no actual discussion of the idea of every detail about airport driving times, so I gave you another example you did not answer - though I won't call it a cop out. You also didn't answer: do you really want to defend compromise is always a good idea?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You are acting remarkably obsessively. It's hugely in the weeds, and the fact that it was a casual random example is going in one ear and out the other. It's not a cop out, there was no actual discussion of the idea of every detail about airport driving times, so I gave you another example you did not answer - though I won't call it a cop out. You also didn't answer: do you really want to defend compromise is always a good idea?

If you really think so, then deconstruct my figures I presented instead of obsessing over my one reference to personal experience.
Way back I did post figures, you know.
You never responded to them.
Thus, my argument isn't "in the weeds" because I used figures about air travel.

And I've never once said that compromise is ALWAYS a good idea.
I don't even know where you ever got the impression that I did.

 

[Craig234]

If you really think so, then deconstruct my figures I presented instead of obsessing over my one reference to personal experience.
Way back I did post figures, you know.
You never responded to them.
Thus, my argument isn't "in the weeds" because I used figures about air travel.

And I've never once said that compromise is ALWAYS a good idea.
I don't even know where you ever got the impression that I did.

My entire point was compromise is not always a good idea. I have a random example of when it's not.

If you agree it's not always a good idea, that's the topic, we agree.

I'm not sure if you know what the phrase 'in the weeds' means, but it means going much further into details than intended or is relevant. The topic is not details about an alternative to the high speed train. It's that compromise is not always a good idea.

It has nothing to do with your 'personal experience', I didn't say a word about that but you say my post obsessed about it?

Since you got into the weeds on the example, I gave you another, which you did not address, using criminalization of homosexuality as another random example, and when you were reminded you hadn't responded, you still didn't. If we agree compromise isn't always a good idea, that's the topic. Not to get into the details of transportation.

 

[OscarLevant]

That's fine and good. I'm referring to a certain poster.

Who here uses the word plutocracy, several times, in every single post? Nobody.

Funny you should ask, because calling everyone who disagrees with you a plutocrat is exactly the same thing as calling them a communist, only a mirror image.

I've never seen any poster call those who disagree with him/her a 'plutocrat'.

 

[Michael Cole]

I've never seen any poster call those who disagree with him/her a 'plutocrat'.

Well it's happened to many of us.

 

[Puigb]

We'll see. Trump isn't on the ballot much akin to Hillary Clinton not being on the ballot for 2018. Now if somehow the Democrats can make the midterms all about Trump instead of Biden and the Democratic controlled congress, then the Dems will do goo. If it is more about the Democrats, the party in power, then the dems won't do so good.

Hillary wasn't campaigning every week the Trump is. Hillary wasn't the front-runner for the 2020 Dem primaries, the way Trump is for the 2024 GOP primaries. Democrats never liked Hillary, where as Republicans worship Trump.

 

[Perotista]

Your post appears extremist. I don't think you intended it to be. You seem to be influenced by RWE media's and Trump's memes.


McConnell admits the bridge needs repairs. He claims he would vote to overhaul it in a standalone bill. Really? The bridge has been continually under repair since 2008. McConnell has never once proposed legislation to fund its repair. In fact, he stopped all infrastructure legislation that came before the senate.
If McConnell doesn't put Kentucky's needs before his own political ambition, Kentucky will never be competitive economically. Kentucky's resources will be sold off to outsiders indifferent to the state's welfare. Look no further than Eastern Kentucky's roads, polluted water and lack of internet access for proof of McConnell's real intent.
Margaret Groves
Frankfort"

Hillary wasn't campaigning every week the Trump is. Hillary wasn't the front-runner for the 2020 Dem primaries, the way Trump is for the 2024 GOP primaries. Democrats never liked Hillary, where as Republicans worship Trump.

Hillary had the Democratic Party establishment behind her along with most state Democratic party leadership. The Democrats let Sanders run so it wouldn't look like Hillary was queened or coronation the nominee. No Democratic Party leaders ever thought Sanders would make a race out of it. Hillary also had all the big money. She had everything needed to win the primaries along with the super delegates. The fix was in. Although it needed more fixing that anyone ever thought.

One of the main reason Hillary lost was she wasn't campaigning, she let Trump both out work and out campaign her, 116 campaign visits, stops, rallies for Trump, 71 for Clinton which that 71 looked much larger than it was due to her campaign fund raising in deep blue California and New York are included. In the deciding states, Trump made 5 visits to Wisconsin, Hillary zero. In Michigan it was Trump 6 to Hillary's one. In Pennsylvania, Trump 8 to Hillary's 5 and even in electoral vote rich Florida, Trump 13 visits, stops, rallies to Hillary's 8. Her campaign strategy was inept. She also let Trump hog the media spot light. There wasn't a day that went by where Trump was the headliner, the number one story in the news.

It seemed to me Hillary thought she deserved the presidency and since she deserved the presidency, she didn't have to work to get it. I don't know about never liked, the Democrats gave her an 85% favorable rating vs. 15% unfavorable. That seems pretty well liked to me. republicans gave Trump a 75% favorable vs. 24% unfavorable. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Today, trump is seen more favorable than he was in 2016 by Republicans, 85% favorable, 14% unfavorable. Question 74G. Now Biden is seen 88% favorable/11% unfavorable by the democrats, question 74A. So each is their party's standard bearer. It shouldn't surprise anyone the standard bearer or head of the party is seen favorable by those in their party. That's to be expected.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/j46zs8picp/econTabReport.pdf

 

[Puigb]

Hillary had the Democratic Party establishment behind her along with most state Democratic party leadership. The Democrats let Sanders run so it wouldn't look like Hillary was queened or coronation the nominee. No Democratic Party leaders ever thought Sanders would make a race out of it. Hillary also had all the big money. She had everything needed to win the primaries along with the super delegates. The fix was in. Although it needed more fixing that anyone ever thought.

One of the main reason Hillary lost was she wasn't campaigning, she let Trump both out work and out campaign her, 116 campaign visits, stops, rallies for Trump, 71 for Clinton which that 71 looked much larger than it was due to her campaign fund raising in deep blue California and New York. In the deciding states, Trump made 5 visits to Wisconsin, Hillary zero. In Michigan it was Trump 6 to Hillary's one. In Pennsylvania, Trump 8 to Hillary's 5 and even in electoral vote rich Florida, Trump 13 visits, stops, rallies to Hillary's 8. Her campaign strategy was inept. She also let Trump hog the media spot light. There wasn't a day that went by where Trump was the headliner, the number one story in the news.

It seemed to me Hillary thought she deserved the presidency and since she deserved the presidency, she didn't have to work to get it. I don't know about never liked, the Democrats gave her an 85% favorable rating vs. 15% unfavorable. That seems pretty well liked to me. republicans gave Trump a 75% favorable vs. 24% unfavorable. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Today, trump is seen more favorable than he was in 2016 by Republicans, 85% favorable, 14% unfavorable. Question 74G. Now Biden is seen 88% favorable/11% unfavorable by the democrats, question 74A. So each is their party's standard bearer. It shouldn't surprise anyone the standard bearer or head of the party is seen favorable by those in those parties. That's to be expected.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/j46zs8picp/econTabReport.pdf

ok, but when Hillary lost the presidency she became irrelevant. Nobody cared what she thought. Meanwhile, Trump is still doing rallies...all the time, he's on Fox, Newsmax or OANN, almost daily bashing Biden, and polls after polls show he is the front runner for the 2024 GOP nomination. He's out there endorsing candidates, while at the same time ending political careers of GOP politicians who don't support his stolen election lies.

Come Perotista, this is nothing like Clinton in 2016. Nobody cares about Clinton in 2021, where as the GOP voter base still consider's Trump their standard bearer, and like it or not, his strong presence within the GOP makes him and the GOP an easy mark for the Democrats.

 

[Perotista]

ok, but when Hillary lost the presidency she became irrelevant. Nobody cared what she thought. Meanwhile, Trump is still doing rallies...all the time, he's on Fox, Newsmax or OANN, almost daily bashing Biden, and polls after polls show he is the front runner for the 2024 GOP nomination. He's out there endorsing candidates, while at the same time ending political careers of GOP politicians who don't support his stolen election lies.

Come Perotista, this is nothing like Clinton in 2016. Nobody cares about Clinton in 2021, where as the GOP voter base still consider's Trump their standard bearer, and like it or not, his strong presence within the GOP makes him and the GOP an easy mark for the Democrats.

You're right. I've followed politics for a long time, first becoming interested in politics when I watched the 1956 Republican and Democratic conventions on TV. I know of no other presidential candidate which lost that stayed around to head their party. They receded away letting others come to the front. All became irrelevant although some were good at fund raising for other party candidates. Trump is totally different in that. Trump is an egotist, his ego won't let him admit he lost.

We somehow got off on this tangent, I totally forgot what I originally posted. I think it was I stated the 2020 election was a rejection of Trump, that is all it was. It wasn't an endorsement of Biden or the Democratic Party when one looks at the whole ballot. No coat tails for Biden, no mandate. Also from what I've seen, most independents have placed Trump on the dustbin of history, they're not worried about him. They're worried in what is happening today, the present. I have a suspicion that the Democrats will be mighty surprised when their 6 Jan hearings start and they're the only one interested.

 

[Craig234]

I've never seen any poster call those who disagree with him/her a 'plutocrat'.

Nope. I've said some were supporting plutocracy, if they had said something that specifically supported the policies or politicians that increase plutocracy. E.g., supporting Senima's opposition to any tax increase on the rich would be supporting plutocracy, given the hugely overly low tax rates on the rich and corporations.

 

[tshade]

Of all the things I accuse and suspect Manchin of, that is not one.

I know it is accurate-----------I have been around too long and seen it before......

 

[post]

Hillary had the Democratic Party establishment behind her along with most state Democratic party leadership. The Democrats let Sanders run so it wouldn't look like Hillary was queened or coronation the nominee. No Democratic Party leaders ever thought Sanders would make a race out of it. Hillary also had all the big money. She had everything needed to win the primaries along with the super delegates. The fix was in. Although it needed more fixing that anyone ever thought.

One of the main reason Hillary lost was she wasn't campaigning, she let Trump both out work and out campaign her, -snip-. She also let Trump hog the media spot light. There wasn't a day that went by where Trump was the headliner, the number one story in the news.

-snip-Hillary thought she deserved the presidency -snip-, she didn't have to work to get it. I don't know about never liked, the Democrats gave her an 85% favorable rating vs. 15% unfavorable. That seems pretty well liked to me. republicans gave Trump a 75% favorable -snip-

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Today, trump is seen more favorable than he was in 2016 by Republicans, 85% favorable, 14% unfavorable. Question 74G. Now Biden is seen 88% favorable/11% unfavorable by the democrats, question 74A. So each is their party's standard bearer. It shouldn't surprise anyone . -snip-

How have Trump and his party's candidates fared in elections since the women marched on DC in 2017.
Before the 2021 TX massacre of women's reproductive rights, already were locations in the far mid-west in
which "American taliban" had already driven out all women's healthcare within a 400 mile radius ..

Trump was a failed casino investor and TV game show host. Hillary could have made entertainer appearances, like Trump and it would have made no difference to voters attracted to Trump because it is an irresistible attraction. The hooks are the authoritarian vibe triggering some component of personality damaged during childhood, and the repetitiveness "lock her up!" Consider what happened to Trump's initial 16 competition. Remember the attack on Ms. Fiorina's face?

You may have missed...

https://webcache.googleusercontent....erage/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
..Media gorged on Hillary Clinton email coverage
Media critic
August 25, 2017

"A December report from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy delivered some sobering news ... “Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,” noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. “Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. ...alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most ..covered policy position.”

Another study-..of Harvard .. couldn’t agree more. In a report released last week, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard put together this chart ... issues from May 2015 through the November 2016 election.

“Clinton – Email” is clearly the beast of this lot,... but also emails ..WikiLeaks relating to her campaign. .. the Shorenstein Center conclusions featured inputs from the major broadcasters and newspapers over the final months of the 2016 race, the Berkman Klein results stem from online content .."

Study: Hillary Clinton’s emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69

A stark finding from an analysis of New York Times coverage.

www.vox.com

..emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69​

A stark finding from an analysis of New York Times coverage.
By Jen Kirbyjen Dec 7, 2017,
The hand-wringing over the 2016 election continues more than a year later. Fake news. Russia collusion. James Comey. Wisconsin.."

And today is the 30th anniversary of this,

“Year of the Woman” and 2018: the parallels, explained ... - Vox​

Nov 2, 2018 — In 1992, it was surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings and the testimony of Anita Hill, bringing attention to problems of sexual ...

 

[Perotista]

How have Trump and his party's candidates fared in elections since the women marched on DC in 2017.
Before the 2021 TX massacre of women's reproductive rights, already were locations in the far mid-west in
which "American taliban" had already driven out all women's healthcare within a 400 mile radius ..

..emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69​

A stark finding from an analysis of New York Times coverage.
By Jen Kirbyjen Dec 7, 2017,
The hand-wringing over the 2016 election continues more than a year later. Fake news. Russia collusion. James Comey. Wisconsin.."

And today is the 30th anniversary of this,

“Year of the Woman” and 2018: the parallels, explained ... - Vox​

Nov 2, 2018 — In 1992, it was surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings and the testimony of Anita Hill, bringing attention to problems of sexual ...

Well, let's see. 2018, definitely the year of the House Democrats. they gained 42 house seats, but lost 2 senate seats, 2020 the democrats won the presidency, but lost 13 house seats, gained 3 senate seats, lost 2 state legislatures and lost a governor. Kind of a mixed bag. But no denying 2018 was a very good year for house Democrats. 2020 a good year for democrats if one just looks at the presidential election, not so good down ballot.

I look at 2020 as a total rejection of Trump, but not an endorsement of Biden or the Democrats, certainly no mandate. Now a mandate would be Ronald Reagan in 1980, he beat Carter by 11 points, the Republicans picked up 35 house seats and gained 12 senate seats enabling the Republicans to take control of the senate for the first time since 1954. Obama came close to a mandate in 2008, beating McCain by 8 points, gained 31 house seats and 8 senate seats. Compare that to Biden's loss of 13 house seats in 2020, you can see there was no mandate. Biden did beat Trump by 4 points, the same margin Obama won by in 2012 over Romney. Fact is 2020 was the first election since 1884, Grover Cleveland where a presidential candidate won the popular vote via to winning the presidency and lost house seats. No coat tails. One needs coat tails to be considered a mandate.

2022 is still up in the air since I haven't begun to work on my forecasts yet. One can't tell how the house will go until redistricting is complete. In the senate, each party has 4 endangered seats. NH, GA, AZ, NV for the Democrats, PA, WI, NC, FL for the GOP. All the rest look safe for the party that now holds them. More on this later.

I'll add this, Biden and company are losing independent voter support. Independents by voting for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 by a 54-41 margin is who helped the Democrats gain 42 house seats. Independents voting for Biden 54-41 in 2020 are the ones who caused his win. But independents voting for Trump in 2016 are the ones that gave Trump the White House. If I were a democrat, I'd be worried about losing the independent vote in 2022. Here's a good article.

Independents have turned on Joe Biden​

Independents have turned on Joe Biden

Biden won the 2020 election in large part because he was able to win the center... That's why it should be alarming to Biden that the recent downturn in his approval rating has come disproportionately from independents.

www.cnn.com

The GOP is the smaller of the two major parties, but if they win enough independents they could very well regain control of congress. All the republican party needs is a net gain of 5 house seats and one senate seat. Very possible especially if independents desert Biden and company.

 

[Puigb]

You're right. I've followed politics for a long time, first becoming interested in politics when I watched the 1956 Republican and Democratic conventions on TV. I know of no other presidential candidate which lost that stayed around to head their party. They receded away letting others come to the front. All became irrelevant although some were good at fund raising for other party candidates. Trump is totally different in that. Trump is an egotist, his ego won't let him admit he lost.

We somehow got off on this tangent, I totally forgot what I originally posted. I think it was I stated the 2020 election was a rejection of Trump, that is all it was. It wasn't an endorsement of Biden or the Democratic Party when one looks at the whole ballot. No coat tails for Biden, no mandate. Also from what I've seen, most independents have placed Trump on the dustbin of history, they're not worried about him. They're worried in what is happening today, the present. I have a suspicion that the Democrats will be mighty surprised when their 6 Jan hearings start and they're the only one interested.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Trump is the present. He may not be in power right now, but he clearly is trying to regain power. And it starts in 2022, where he clearly will be very involved in the mid-terms, far more than any former president ever was.

 

[Puigb]

Well, let's see. 2018, definitely the year of the House Democrats. they gained 42 house seats, but lost 2 senate seats, 2020 the democrats won the presidency, but lost 13 house seats, gained 3 senate seats, lost 2 state legislatures and lost a governor. Kind of a mixed bag. But no denying 2018 was a very good year for house Democrats. 2020 a good year for democrats if one just looks at the presidential election, not so good down ballot.

I look at 2020 as a total rejection of Trump, but not an endorsement of Biden or the Democrats, certainly no mandate. Now a mandate would be Ronald Reagan in 1980, he beat Carter by 11 points, the Republicans picked up 35 house seats and gained 12 senate seats enabling the Republicans to take control of the senate for the first time since 1954. Obama came close to a mandate in 2008, beating McCain by 8 points, gained 31 house seats and 8 senate seats. Compare that to Biden's loss of 13 house seats in 2020, you can see there was no mandate. Biden did beat Trump by 4 points, the same margin Obama won by in 2012 over Romney. Fact is 2020 was the first election since 1884, Grover Cleveland where a presidential candidate won the popular vote via to winning the presidency and lost house seats. No coat tails. One needs coat tails to be considered a mandate.

2022 is still up in the air since I haven't begun to work on my forecasts yet. One can't tell how the house will go until redistricting is complete. In the senate, each party has 4 endangered seats. NH, GA, AZ, NV for the Democrats, PA, WI, NC, FL for the GOP. All the rest look safe for the party that now holds them. More on this later.

I'll add this, Biden and company are losing independent voter support. Independents by voting for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 by a 54-41 margin is who helped the Democrats gain 42 house seats. Independents voting for Biden 54-41 in 2020 are the ones who caused his win. But independents voting for Trump in 2016 are the ones that gave Trump the White House. If I were a democrat, I'd be worried about losing the independent vote in 2022. Here's a good article.

Independents have turned on Joe Biden​

Independents have turned on Joe Biden

Biden won the 2020 election in large part because he was able to win the center... That's why it should be alarming to Biden that the recent downturn in his approval rating has come disproportionately from independents.

www.cnn.com

The GOP is the smaller of the two major parties, but if they win enough independents they could very well regain control of congress. All the republican party needs is a net gain of 5 house seats and one senate seat. Very possible especially if independents desert Biden and company.

There's too much division in today's era of politics for a "mandate". Obama 2008 was the last closest "mandate" election we'll ever see, at least in a presidential year, IMO.

 

[post]

There's too much division in today's era of politics for a "mandate". Obama 2008 was the last closest "mandate" election we'll ever see, at least in a presidential year, IMO.

Here is the mandate, supported by the facts. Who opposed the billion dollar give away to the Israeli government and Raytheon, twice, leading up to its fast track passage in a vote that attracted support of 409 House members on Sept 23?

House passes $1B for Israel's Iron Dome after progressive dustup

The funding was stripped from a stopgap funding bill and scheduled for its own vote after liberals protested.

www.politico.com

Who opposes passage of the "bi-partisan infrastructure bill" unless it is voted on immediately after the proposed Biden infrastructure and climate change protection legislation? Who opposes Medicare negotiating drug prices with Big Pharma?

What is the purpose of the Manchin sponsored "bi-partisan infrastructure bill"? Is it not intended to shield the wealthiest from any tax increase to pay for its $550 billion in new appropriations? The republicans of Sen. Manchin's bi-partisan group also rejected increasing the budget of the IRS after intentionally reducing it at each opportunity since 2013 on the justification of
the distortion about a Lois Lerner lead IRS rejection of non-profit status applications of tea party groups that was not directed in
any partisan scheme as the republicans had claimed for years and the Trump Admin. illegally admitted to and "settled" with
payments the Mnuchin Treasury Dept. knew to be unjustified and improper to complaining conservative non-profit status applicants.

Wasn't the "bi-partisan infrastructure bill" as originally proposed, limited only to redirecting already appropriated but not yet spent Covid-19 funds to infrastructure repair and improvement?

-snip-

Funding remains major issue in permanent fix for Brent Spence​

https://local12.com › news › local › funding-remains-m...
Nov 13, 2020 — (WKRC) – "The Brent Spence Bridge is still expected to be closed for ... "The solution is in Frankfort, not in Washington," McConnell said."

.....
According to federal guidelines, it is unsafe and obsolete. It can't support the present volume of vehicles passing over it. It has no emergency shoulders and its lanes are so narrow only a yard of space remains between passing tractor-trailers.

McConnell admits the bridge needs repairs. He claims he would vote to overhaul it in a standalone bill. Really? The bridge has been continually under repair since 2008. McConnell has never once proposed legislation to fund its repair. In fact, he stopped all infrastructure legislation that came before the senate.
If McConnell doesn't put Kentucky's needs before his own political ambition, Kentucky will never be competitive economically. Kentucky's resources will be sold off to outsiders indifferent to the state's welfare. Look no further than Eastern Kentucky's roads, polluted water and lack of internet access for proof of McConnell's real intent.
Margaret Groves
Frankfort"

Did Mitch McConnell reject appropriating any federal funds to replace the obsolete Spence bridge carrying two interstate highways over the Ohio River near Covington, KY, until this happened 11 months ago?

Beams replaced, repairs continue on fire-damaged Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati

The double-decker bridge that carries traffic on I-71/I-75 was damaged in a fiery crash on Nov. 11.

www.wdrb.com

Beams replaced, repairs continue on fire-damaged Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati​

• Dec 2, 2020

A 2019 chart presenting the wealth distribution of the wealthiest one percent. The Biden legislation proposes a tax increase only on the wealthiest .33, the top third of the top one percent.

U.S. Millionaires. See current wealth levels versus in 2019, below this chart...

U.S. millionaires: distribution by net worth 2019 | Statista

As of 2019, 84 percent of millionaires in the United States had a net worth of between one million and two and a half million U.S.

www.statista.com

The data in the chart above is of 2019. Since then, the wealth of the top one percent increased from $33.85 trillion to $43.27 trillion.

2019-Q4 Top one percent wealth = $33.85 Trillion (run your cursor along the top of the chart displayed at this link):

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

 

[Perotista]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Trump is the present. He may not be in power right now, but he clearly is trying to regain power. And it starts in 2022, where he clearly will be very involved in the mid-terms, far more than any former president ever was.

I don't doubt that, all I'm doing is letting you know how most independent think or view the present situation according to the numbers. Beginning in July, especially August most independent have relegated Trump to the past, ancient history category and instead of giving Biden and company the benefit of high approvals just for not being Trump, they now have focused in on how Biden and company are doing their job. Trump no long a worry.

Which I think explains why Independents gave Biden an average 53% approval until July. They were just happy Trump was gone, didn't care what Biden and company were doing. That changed beginning in July as independents finally realized Trump was indeed gone. Independents approval of Biden dropped to 49% in July, 47% in August, down to 43% September and down to 37% today.

That I think has repercussions for the midterms come next year. Plenty of time for Biden and company to recover, over a year. But what all this shows, at least to me, is for independents, the focus is now off Trump, he's become irrelevant, their focus is on Biden and what he as done lately, today.

As for me personally, I never liked Trump, never voted for him and never will. But I think it is important to get a feel, know how independents are feeling, with both party's base down around 30% of the electorate, it's important to win the independents vote. Neither party can win relying on their base.

 

[Perotista]

There's too much division in today's era of politics for a "mandate". Obama 2008 was the last closest "mandate" election we'll ever see, at least in a presidential year, IMO.

Today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-partisanship sucks to put it mildly. But even when a president wins a mandate, it usually is taken away from him in his first midterm This is due to the president going too far one way or the other, farther than the public at large is willing to go. Obama felt that in 2010 losing 63 seats, Reagan felt it in 1982 losing 26 house seats, even LBJ felt it in 1966 after defeating Goldwater by 22 points, he lost 47 seats.