Comcast is threatening to sue Fight For the Future for running a pro-Net Neutrality website.
With the likelihood that Giaforte wins in Montana tonight and the GOP’s perfect willingness to accept him we seem to be in a world where Stillson would still have won his run for Senate despite using a baby as a human shield against Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone.
1 Like
i mean, you could try and spin it that way but that’s not going to be an effective message to get change.
Montana has a Democratic Senator and Governor at the moment. Which should tell you that the DCC should be working to get candidates that better fits the region they are running in. The guy on the Democratic side was a newbie, had a strange background and was being backed largely by the Sanders wing of the party, in a state that requires for a Democrat to win to be gifted politically and be more in line with Montana ideologically (i.E. Moderate). The state did go for Trump by 20 points and at the same time elected a Democratic Governor.
Also important to note that the the Republican running did not take a position on the Healthcare law.
Also this.
Not wanting to step on any toes, but I was not aware of the situation in Montana. This was informative to me.
I would disagree also that “voting against their own interests” is a rather uncharitable view of the situation. The Democrats couldn’t find their spines with two hands and an x-ray. Seeing as how Moderate is a contested and continent, if not incoherent, political term, why should a Democrat tack right in Montana? If the Centrist wing couldn’t up the energy to #resist then what would have been the use? Quist lost for the reason most Democrats have lost this decade. The party is too riven with contradictions to adequately contest for power so the plucky challengers get left behind.
[quote=“DoubleGomez, post:626, topic:125”]
why should a Democrat tack right in Montana?
[/quote]Because only local Montana people have any say in whether or not the get elected?
You underestimate how deeply conservative most of rural America is. There is no progressive platform that speaks to those people: they care more about culture and race.
2 Likes
[quote=“DoubleGomez, post:626, topic:125”]
The [democratic] party is too riven with contradictions
[/quote]Such as? What specifically? How is it different from the GOP’s contradictions?
I disagree with your premise.
2 Likes
The problem with Montana and similar red states is the voters really don’t give a shit what happens outside of their own state. Of course they keep getting blindsided when they keep electing hacks that was to shred the social safety net that still exists.
If the Democratic party has a weakness they do not have a coherent way of address unemployment problems due to automation. They also not addressing the voter repression problems which is what cost them the election.
[quote=“Raithnor, post:629, topic:125”]
If the Democratic party has a weakness they do not have a coherent way of address unemployment problems due to automation.
[/quote]Neither do the GOP.
[quote=“Raithnor, post:629, topic:125”]
They also not addressing the voter repression problems which is what cost them the election.
[/quote]They are not in power and can not meaningfully affect that problem: it’s done at the state level.
2 Likes
The GOP can always sell the idea they can make things like they used be. People will buy that idea, even if it’s a bullshit.
“Cannot meaningfully affect the problem” is not what you’d call a winning statement.
But they don’t actually run on that. The voters didn’t vote on that.
Jobs weren’t actually the issue for these people. They never were.
4 Likes
As a Southerner who works with and is related to primarily Republicans, I don’t think I remember anyone really bringing up jobs during this last election. The Republicans I know just grumbled about “Killary” and Muslims with the occasion sprinkling of “the gay agenda”. The few moderate Republicans (mainly fiscally) I know were either very quiet during this last election cycle or are no longer Republicans.
4 Likes
You guys constantly talk about people as they are as engaged as you are with politics. A large amount of the population grew up in a particular party of their parents and votes the way their parents told them be it Democratic or Republican. Actual hardcore partisans are MAYBE 40% of the electorate. The rest will drift one way or the other. I know this sounds crazy but I ran into Undecided voters the day before the election in 2016. I also found people who voted for President randomly. This is in Fucking Pennsylvania. Don’t underestimate how disengaged or misinformed the average voter is.
Again, as I said above, you have to pick a candidate that appeals to the state they are running in AND has political talent. This is why someone like Tester is the Senator from Montana.
4 Likes
The take away from this has been: “Democrats should appeal more to white racists” which is not something I agree with.
Or that “fear of other” is the most effective weapon the modern GOP has, and Democrats need to quit pretending it’s more nuanced and about economics.
1 Like
I’ve met adults who don’t really know what “left-wing” versus “right-wing” mean, that there are elections every year (not just every four years), or what political parties really are.
I have met adults who think the GOP and the Republicans are different parties, but they don’t know anything about them.
I’ve met adults who have never voted.
I’ve met adults who have no idea what primaries are, and only had a vague idea of who was running for president before they went to vote.
7 Likes
Of course they do but The Muslims™ and The Gays™ and The Blacks™ are ruining our country in nebulous ways I can’t articulate and Joe Schmo Republican says he’ll get rid of them and Obamacare that those people are using to leech off my tax money and what do you mean ACA and Obamacare are the same thing?
2 Likes
Bannon is back.
I’ve been mulling over these thoughts for a bit now and while I don’t really have a solution, I need to write them down.
Since the 2008 Election campaign, Republican propaganda outlets have labelled Barrack Obama a “traitor” no matter how insignificant the event or how very far from even remotely being traitorous the action or intent. Since his inauguration he has also been labelled a “tyrant” in essentially the same manner. The result of this is the following:
-
It relativised the terms “treason” and “tyranny”. If not wearing a flag lapel pin is treasonous, then the word treason is meaningless, it becomes a joke. So when someone like Kushner or Flynn engage in actual literally treasonous behavior nobody has a real word anymore to describe it, shielding them from criticism to a certain extent.
-
The relativisation also made a whole lot more people A-OK with such behavior. The conclusion here is “If it’s okay for Barack Obama to be a tyrannical traitor to further his policies, then it’s A-OK for us to do the same” even though of course Obama never behaved anywhere tyrannical or treasonous. That’s how people are fine with Gianforte beating up a reporter or with the unconstitutional muslim ban.
-
I can’t really tell which came first here. Either the republican party wrote itself a carte blanche to engage in such horrendous behavior with such propaganda and thus the people who would utilize it would rise to the top, or the people who would use it drove this propaganda to excuse their own despicable actions. But regardless of which came first, it’s obvious that the GOP is little more than a cancerous outgrowth of political thought.
1 Like