-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT7| Tell Me The Bad Things That Happened Since I Fell Asleep
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Calling Avenatti a "Democratic operative" with no facts or other basis to go on, was the worst of his time on 60 minutes.
Yeah, that whole interview was a mess IMO.
Not his typical MO on the show.
Again, it was kidnapping as feared.
Now now, a good friend of Roger Stone has to put a ton of spin out there to stay out of Leavenworth!
When I saw the tweet, I immediately thought, "Now that's the most passive aggressive 'resistance' possible."
But whatever helps, I guess.
Can't by judged by the base for anti Trump votes if I just don't vote at all / thinking image
Like, it's so
She could've spent a whole month in Maine beaver-hunting.
Marco Rubio should retroactively claim he did this and wasn't just being lazy
He's retiring anyway.
Copycat.
Flip the script. "Let's dispel this fiction that Marco Rubio knew what he was doing. He had no idea what he was doing."
If McConnell wanted to, he could just remove Flake from his position on the judiciary committee and replace him.
I was thinking of Shoshana's movie at the end of Basterds
Ah, damn. I thought I beat you. But really, I was beaten. 'Cuz your reference is better :'(
I get the sense they only keep McConnell because nobody else wants the job. He seems to have engendered little warmth among his caucus. They might see removing and replacing Flake as too vindictive to tolerate.
Or, more likely, I have no clue what I'm talking about.
No you do
Being the senate majority leader is just as shitty if not more so as the house
Yet despite Paul Ryan openly telling the world he's fucking quitting and won't run again.. even when they have FULL CONTROL AND SEVERAL MONTHS LEFT TO GET THINGS DONE.. no one has come for his job or tried to force him to resign
Can't imagine any other era of politics where no one would want to jump at the speakership or try to force a change in a similar situation.
Only thing that seems even comparable is Brexit. May is only still PM because nobody else wants be responsible for whatever happens
As someone raised Mormon, yes, this is how I'd subtly, passive aggressively, raise my middle finger if I still ascribed to that shit.
Never said this before and will likely never say it again
YAS. QUEEN.
My god could we use her now....
How the fuck did they not just strip Dr.Dolittlecockus of the nomination and give it to her after this speech
felt a little dirty going "no Reagan was right and you were wrong achtually" when she went into protectionist anti trade shit but still; what a fucking speech
Last edited:
Fun fact: Ann Richards was Karl Rove's first victim when she lost to W. Bush in 1994. He started a whisper campaign about her being a lesbian... despite her being divorced from a man and having four children.
She actually performed quite well in that election, 46% of the vote, considering that it was the Republican Revolution year and she had just vetoed a concealed carry bill in gun-crazy Texas
I learned about Ann Richards because of her guest appearance on a King of the Hill episode. When one of my friends saw that episode for the first time, he commnented to me how strange it was that someone most likely conservative-leaning like Hank and his friends would revere Ann Richards, but looking at what she was like in real life, she really lived up to the hype.
Chuck Tingle is a national goddamned treasure and I won't hear a word to the contrary.
When people ask [Crimzon], what makes America so special? What has America produced that no other country could or would? I shall answer simply, Chuck goddamned Tingle.
When people ask [Crimzon], what makes America so special? What has America produced that no other country could or would? I shall answer simply, Chuck goddamned Tingle.
How did Republicans win 63 seats in 2010, when Democrats didn't get close to that until 2 elections?
People got motivated by the image of an uppity black man standing over grandmother in her sick bed waiting to smother her with a pillow.
Is it just me or is this graph terrible? I can't figure out whether the Y axis is supposed to be the number of house seats gained, or the number of competitive seats held by the president's party, or both somehow?
2010 census adjustments+advantages in state governorships+house representative rural advantage by default
What Mario said.
Also, 2006 and 2008 saw Democrats win a lot of seats in red-leaning or outright red areas. Those seats, predictably, fell in a Republican wave despite the incumbents' running good campaigns (e.g., Tom Perriello in Virginia). I recall a contemporary analysis saying something to the effect of, "Republicans didn't win by beating Democrats on Democratic territory; they won by beating Democrats on Republican territory."
I'd be slightly worried about having the same problem this year and 2020 if we weren't primed to have redistricting on our side this time. As long as we keep or expand our majorities in 2020, we can draw the next decade's map to be more favorable to us. And since the SCOTUS has all but declared gerrymandering a-OK, I think we should feel no compunction about slanting the maps in our favor, frankly.
Plus, the Senate will only continue to drift rightward in its current form, so we need to compensate by making the House Democratic-leaning for at least a decade.
Then why is 2018 even on the graph? I hate it when people try to cram too much crap into a single two dimensional graph like this
Is this the general opinion now? Last I read it was basically "The people who brought the suit aren't affected", so once the suit is retooled with people actually affected, gerrymandering is struck down. Was that an overly-optimistic read on it?
Think of the composition of the Court when it next hears a gerrymandering case. It's here to stay, except in those cases of egregious and blatant racial gerrymandering that get a district or two redrawn.
At the federal level, anyway. Individual states can follow PA's example and produce fairer maps at the state level.
Ah, yeah, forgot that gerrymandering was basically a Kennedy issue. Well bugger. But, yeah, like you say, state level it can be changed, at least.
The graphs are showing the number of seats in play according to Cook. The flat lines are the actual seats gained in the years, hence 2018 doesn't have one.
Here's Mike "yes I'm still on this planet" Dukakis's take on everything right now if anyone cares
And that doesn't depress eh? The Senate is so much more important and it's going to inevitably slide right into republican hands so they can keep blocking liberal judges for the SC and federal courts. Mitch doesn't even have to bother rushing appointments. They'll inevitably take over the courts anyway.
Even if a dem pres gets to replace the two oldest liberals on the SC. The balance is so titled against ever getting it to swing left. Fucking depressing
Nate Cohn had a wonderful Twitter thread comparing this election and 2006:
Funnily, 2006 looked like a landslide in the aggregate polling - or, more colloquially, the generic ballot - but not in the individual districts. The elections were noteworthy because Democrats won the House and lost none of their own seats, but they were also peculiar because Democrats won in some deep-red areas but failed to knock off quite a few Moderate Darlings. In short, that year Democrats won but didn't win all the seats you'd expect them to win given the polling.
Funnily, 2006 looked like a landslide in the aggregate polling - or, more colloquially, the generic ballot - but not in the individual districts. The elections were noteworthy because Democrats won the House and lost none of their own seats, but they were also peculiar because Democrats won in some deep-red areas but failed to knock off quite a few Moderate Darlings. In short, that year Democrats won but didn't win all the seats you'd expect them to win given the polling.
What's this thread's take on Chapo Trap House? How many people here listen to it?
I've started noticing some of their talking-points coming up more frequently around resetera
I've started noticing some of their talking-points coming up more frequently around resetera
They're pretty funny, but any time they start getting heated about Dems I can't help but think of how extraordinarily white they are. Most of their takes on free trade/neoliberalism/american foreign policy are usually coherent if you take them sui generis, but if you put them side by side and try to construct an actual ideological framework out of them you end up with contradictory gibberish.
Last edited:
I don't care for Chapo. They bitched recently about how the guys from Crooked Media aren't open about their ideological values, but that has always been irrelevant considering the guys from Crooked worked for Obama and make clear regularly where they stand on issues. I've heard a ton of their clips, and they strike me as the stereotypical brogressives that think it's cool to shit on Democrats for their failures while not actually contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way. They also like to speak platitudes while ignoring very real political realities, and it makes their commentary seem much less valuable.
- Status