Democratic (Party) Direction

Trump won that district by 19 points. The Dem challenger is now less than 10 points behind the incumbent Republican, so that's vaguely nice in terms of reading tea leaves about voters shifts leading up to November, but it's not really exciting in any practical terms.

http://www.clickhole.com/article/connecting-heartland-dnc-has-paid-manhattan-consul-7318

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/06/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-395924

Nancy Pelosi is betting everything on taking back the House in November, and most Democrats are confident they’ll pull it off. But what happens if they fail?

A stealthy discussion is already underway within the Democratic Caucus, particularly among members whose only experience in Congress is in the minority.

Assuming Pelosi either leaves on her own or is pressured to step down, her exit would trigger a messy battle between the party’s old guard, led by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and the party’s younger members, represented by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.).

It’s a generational showdown that's been put off for years, but one that Democrats might not be able to be avoid much longer.

"It will be an intraparty war. That's what you can expect,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who predicted a "mass exodus" of Democrats if they don't win the House in November. "That's at the highest levels of leadership and at the committee level."

Hoyer, 78, has served as No. 2 House Democrat since 2003 and has a reserve of loyalty and experience on his side. Crowley, 55, would offer a newer perspective, having been in leadership only since 2013. Right now, it’s a toss up who would get the job in a post-Pelosi world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/house-democrats-illinois-primary-newman-lipinski/552599/?utm_source=atltw

good

otm

xp, does Crowley really constitute that much of a potential break from Pelosi? I thought he was another middle-of-the-road machine guy

good

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Wednesday, February 7, 2018 11:50 AM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

― I want to change my display name (dan m), Wednesday, February 7, 2018

otm

also listen i know some people think manchin is the only democrat west virginia will ever produce but my god was he high trying to get people to sign a don't-campaign-against-your-fellow-congressmen pledge on the senate floor or what

gotta love when a congressman puts so much effort into legislation that helps himself more than anyone else on earth

or a pledge, rather, not legislation

need to start a "this other facial expression" w/ this pic of lipinski

Can the Democratic Party’s Left Flank Win in 2018? This Illinois Primary Could Be a Bellwether: https://t.co/NswcvbLdDv @Marie4Congress @OurRevolution pic.twitter.com/5Tk32ZRKzv

— In These Times (@inthesetimesmag) February 8, 2018

Lipinski photograph has a kinda Tom Cruisey thing going on

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_80%2Cw_300/MTE5NDg0MDU0OTM2NTg1NzQz/tom-cruise-9262645-1-402.jpg

Nancy Pelosi is betting everything on taking back the House in November, and most Democrats are confident they’ll pull it off.

I'm a Democrat and I'm definitely not confident of this. The lines are drawn to protect Republican incumbents and the odds are they're not gonna change. Democrats can take the majority but they're fighitng uphill; they'll have to win by 8-10 points in the popular vote, and that just doesn't happen that often.

The recent PA decision might change that math at least slightly, although it's starting to look like they'll have to send the national guard in to actually enforce it.

looks like the holder/obama group on gerrymandering is starting to kick into gear.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A Democratic group backed by former President Barack Obama said this week it plans to invest millions of dollars in state-level elections in 11 states this year, with its heaviest focus on Ohio.

The group is targeting races in 11 states, including nine gubernatorial races, 18 legislative chambers, two ballot initiatives and two down-ballot races. Eight more states are on the committee’s watch list.

In Ohio, a perennial political battleground, the committee plans to support Democrats for five offices — governor, auditor, secretary of state, Ohio Senate and Ohio House — as well as pushing a redistricting ballot measure.

Other target races include:

— Colorado: Governor, state Senate

— Florida: Governor, state Senate

— Georgia: Governor, state Senate

— Michigan: Governor, state Senate, state House, ballot initiative

— Minnesota: Governor, state Senate, state House

— Nevada: Governor, state Senate, state House

— North Carolina: State Senate, state House

— Pennsylvania: Governor, state Senate, state House

— Texas: State Senate, state House

— Wisconsin: Governor, state Senate

The group also participated in the Virginia House last year, and has targeted both its House and Senate in 2019.

On its watch list are ballot initiatives in Arizona, Missouri, South Dakota and Utah; the governor’s and state Senate races in Maine; and the governor’s, state Senate and state House races in New Hampshire.

Needs more attorneys general

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/10/democrats-special-elections-organizing-401365

story on some DLCC (!= DNC) action

Cool

Louisiana's Democratic governor endorses work requirements for Medicaid: https://t.co/CqcVEM8dqY

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) February 11, 2018

Key word in that headline is Louisiana

seems like the sort of winning strategy that will result in lasting victory and meaningful progress

Key word in that headline is Louisiana

― El Tomboto, Sunday, February 11, 2018 6:55 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do they not deserve doctors there, or do you just have it on good authority that they really hate them

they elected the guy!

yes! over half of (looks up voter turnout) 38.5% of eligible voters went for him, definitely a sign of a strong message that's resonating with the majority

For decades I have been hoping something would somehow motivate all those eligible voters who either aren't registered or have registered but do not vote. In that time we've had several wars, a financial crisis rivaling the Great Depression, swiftly growing income inequality, the impeachment trial of a sitting president, and the first African-American president. You'd think some item on that list would motivate the 30% to 40% of eligible voters who rarely or never vote, but nope.

If anything on the list did, the first African-American president did motivate some of them, but a good half of the newly motivated voters turned out to be die-hard racists.

It should probably go without saying, but 'work requirements for Medicaid' is meant for the die-hard racists, and is exactly the kind of thing that resonates with at least close to the majority in Louisiana...

Why would crises and controversies motivate non-voters? We've never had a lack of either. On wars and income inequality, it's not like there was a party that constituted an opposition to their progress.

Pretty sure those die-hard racists were already voting Republican. The Tea Party wasn't a groundswell of new voters, it was a coming out party for the white nationalist wing of the GOP that had been there for 50 years.

Why would crises and controversies motivate non-voters?

Because there is a very direct correlation between government policies and each of those crises and controversies, and voting exerts an influence on government policies. But these facts do not avail.

As I have pointed out before, if voting was a purely symbolic or impotent act, those in power would not be doing all they can to disenfranchise voters, discourage voting, and to gerrymander voting districts so as to neutralize as many votes as possible. That's a huge clue, imo. It is pure cynicism to dismiss voting as not worthwhile in the current system. Voting is a key piece of changing that system.

voting exerts an influence on government policies

nope. i would say it doesn't and this has been proven time and time again. having multiple wars and a financial crisis and doing nothing to address either probably turned a lot of people off from voting. Dems not addressing the financial crisis when they had power helped drive that economic inequality and disenfranchising their own voters.

voting exerts an influence on government policies.

why would an impeachment trial get people to vote? how does that affect anyone other than the president? this isn't a policy issue, it has nothing to do w people's daily lives. political theater works for some people but most dgaf.

our turnout problem has more to do with Tuesday than anything else

xps

If you view voting as a purely individual action, unconnected to other voters, then you're never going to see how one vote will influence policy. The major problem with our current politics is not that it is based upon the right to vote, but votes are impotent to accomplish anything, but rather the lack of strong organization among eligible voters, through which they form effective voting blocs large enough to influence policy.

If you expect that one or the other major parties will simply align with your point of view and then you will happily vote for its candidates is to view the process from the wrong end. Parties follow power and individual votes are only tiny fragments of power which must be consolidated to be effective. But, for most of us, votes are among the best instruments of power that we have, once we understand them.

So if I, an anti-war voter, vote for the pro-war candidate, that’s going to somehow transform the pro-war candidate into the anti-war politician?

No one said anything about a party aligning perfectly with beliefs. You raised three recent crises as reasons for non-voters to turnout - but all three issues are those where the parties differ relatively little - whether the growth of wealth inequality will be rapid or slightly less rapid is not a flashpoint for political consciousness.

So if I, an anti-war voter, vote for the pro-war candidate, that’s going to somehow transform the pro-war candidate into the anti-war politician?

If you drew that conclusion from what I wrote above, then I have no confidence you would understand anything I say in response.

xps

If you view voting as a purely individual action, unconnected to other voters, then you're never going to see how one vote will influence policy. The major problem with our current politics is not that it is based upon the right to vote, but votes are impotent to accomplish anything, but rather the lack of strong organization among eligible voters, through which they form effective voting blocs large enough to influence policy.

If you expect that one or the other major parties will simply align with your point of view and then you will happily vote for its candidates is to view the process from the wrong end. Parties follow power and individual votes are only tiny fragments of power which must be consolidated to be effective. But, for most of us, votes are among the best instruments of power that we have, once we understand them.

― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 11 February 2018 20:00 (three hours ago) Permalink

This is massively otm. Our ultra-individualistic/consumerist paradigm has really eroded our ability to think in terms of collective and organizational politics, which are really the only kind of politics that mean anything unless you're a billionaire with billionaire friends. That's why we get these idiotic, freakonomics type arguments about how it's not rational and utility-maximizing to vote, because that kind of thinking uses the individual as its only unit.

And of course unions were once the best way for most ordinary people to understand this, and those have been eroded too.

man alive otm. the atomistic/retail voting model is so damaging. (What LGM refers to as "I just can't give my vote away to someone who doesn't make me feel special.")

If you drew that conclusion from what I wrote above, then I have no confidence you would understand anything I say in response.

Your fixation on the importance of voting, then, is misplaced if that's not your intent. If you're saying 'use collective action to force parties to adopt your views,' voting has nothing to do with that - depriving a party of votes is a more effective tool, in that case. If you can be reliably counted on votes regardless of policy, there's no reason for the party to serve you.

If, as a party, you want non-voters or unreliable voters to come out, you have to appeal to their needs - on the issues you raised, Democrats cannot with a straight face argue that they're a party opposed to war and income inequality.

I will no longer accept donations from corporate PACs, and I wanted to share why I’ve made that decision. I hope you’ll join me in doing everything we can to fight to reform our broken campaign finance system. pic.twitter.com/v2oWvEiUCe

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) February 13, 2018

Wow

Whatever else she does/says down the line, taken on its own, that's good stuff.

That might belong more in an Election 2020 thread, lol.

Will be interesting to see if anyone else does the same.

Cory Booker held his nose and voiced support for Medicare for All last year, it’s certainly interesting to see what all these people who want to be president are doing

More good news!

Democrat Margaret Good defeated Republican James Buchanan by a 52-45 margin in a special election for Florida House District 72, marking the 36th state legislative seat Democrats have flipped in a special election since Donald Trump’s election.

Trump carried the district by a 51-46 margin, so this isn’t a huge upset, but it does continue a pattern of downballot Democratic candidates performing substantially better in 2017 and 2018 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

A 12-point swing is pretty big.

Cory Booker held his nose and voiced support for Medicare for All last year, it’s certainly interesting to see what all these people who want to be president are doing

Well that’s how it works, isn’t it? You build enough of a headwind towards a more progressive policy stance, and everybody wanting to be considered valid has to scramble towards that position

Imagine that – coalition building!

why do you have to hold your nose to support Medicare for All?