CorruptUser wrote:So it is all over the news that a powerful NY representative lost a primary to a woman half his age with no actual experience. Less prominent in the news reports is that said representative was one of the most corrupt and despised among the Dems, but let's ignore that. The point is, all the efforts to get out the vote, to galvanize the democratic base to destroy Trump? The Democratic establishment itself is going to be gutted first, and as much as they should be, this may backfire and result in a weakened Democrat party.
Perhaps in some areas, or in the short term, but in the long term, getting rid of the corrupt and the despised ought to strengthen the party overall.
No actual experience might be a weak point, but it can be pitched as an outsider advantage when the insiders have a reputation of corruption and general awfulness. I don't think this is, in the end, all that bad for Democrats. The specific candidate might have issues in terms of this or that, but party wide, both parties would benefit by shedding a bit of dead weight.
sardia wrote:The economic modeling (which doesn't include polling) would assume that a good night for a generic Democrat party with this seat mix, would mean only LOSING 2 seats in the Senate. The map is fucking that awful.
Oh, I wholly agree. The polling maybe pushes it slightly more for the Dems, but at the end of the day, the map is a really, really steep uphill climb in the senate. I feel confident that my Predictit bets that the Republicans will maintain control there will pay off. There's luck, and then there's the hail mary of factors that need to line up for the Democrats to win 51 seats.
CorruptUser wrote:That's missing the point. The seats arent at stake but these are the seats occupied by the leadership. The leadership itself is getting the boot.
Yeah, and given the state of Dem leadership, that's likely a good thing. Shake things up a little bit, let them know that they're not wholly safe from all repercussion.
gd1 wrote:I used to volunteer with some Republicans who were afraid Obama would go for a third term (though I've glossed over stuff that I shouldn't have in the past so I can't judge them). They seemed like good people generally and had no problem with me being Muslim. My worry is that with a red tide + supreme court + Trump we will be deported for our religion. Maybe it's unfounded, but I don't know the rules anymore. I'm sorry things are going this way. Thank you for having a reasonable view of Muslims.
Republicans said the same thing about Clinton. Some democrats expressed similar fear regarding Bush, and if Trump gets a second term, I imagine they will be concerned about Trump's respect for term limits as well. In the end, it's been a long time since someone's had a third term, and nowadays, it's not done. Perhaps the trend will eventually end, but the amount of fearmongering around it seems out of proportion to the likelihood.
Deporting people directly for their religion is probably not going to fly. However, somewhat more indirect things can. For instance, targeting countries of origin that have a lot of a given religion. It's not identical to targeting religious beliefs, but it does have a highly disproportionate impact. I would generally suggest having one's ducks in a row as much as possible legally if one is not a citizen.
sardia wrote:For everyone talking about just how great the liberal tea party faction is doing, can you explain Chelsea Manning and Nixon's loss in the primary?
Chelsea Manning is an entitled ass, and also sort of a traitor. She does not enjoy much of a reputation hereabouts in MD. Had she somehow pulled off the primary, she'd have likely lost the general. In MD, which is nearly impossible for a democrat.
I think young candidates *can* do well in the democratic party, but certainly not every candidate will. They've got to avoid falling into obvious errors along the way still.
sardia wrote:Let me clarify, how exactly does a organization get immigrants to settle in Republican districts as oppose to say, districts that hire immigrants?
What is the Democrat's generic position on immigrants now and what do progressives hope to shift it to?
I don't think that the party has any particular control over where immigrants go, outside of the case of Sanctuary Cities, which anyways would not be very effective at directing them to Republican districts.
That said, I do think that, logically, Democrats have been well served by courting the immigrant vote, and will continue to do so until it stops providing benefit. Why not, after all? Yeah, some of the benefit may accrue in districts which are currently already safe, but that's still at least some benefit.