2018 Midterm Election Thread

[chancellor]

Cmon man, own it. There is no chance you would have ‘pointed out the hypocricsy of the situation’ if it was Tom Seyter making the donation. No chance. It makes the GOP look bad, so it’s a win for you and your team, which is why you posted it.

You mean like the Mother's Day's ads he's funding that basically state if your child is a young GOP member that they'll be a white nationalist in no time?

[Hornsby]

Cmon man, own it. There is no chance you would have ‘pointed out the hypocricsy of the situation’ if it was Tom Seyter making the donation. No chance. It makes the GOP look bad, so it’s a win for you and your team, which is why you posted it.

Sure I would have, which is why I said that I'm sure that there are similar situations with the Dems. It makes Paul Ryan look bad and he's deserving of the scorn, IMO, it just makes the GOP look like a political party collecting as much cash as they can.

I could say the same about Nancy Pelosi if she were dumb enough to get caught in the same situation...

[nots]

I could say the same about Nancy Pelosi if she were dumb enough to get caught in the same situation...

I respectfully disagree, but I will anxiously await your next (first ?) post that is critical of any Democrat (excepting not-a-real-Democrat BErnie Sanders of course).

[Hornsby]

I respectfully disagree, but I will anxiously await your next (first ?) post that is critical of any Democrat (excepting not-a-real-Democrat BErnie Sanders of course).

Well, since were into mind reading now, I'm pretty sure that you don't "respectfully" disagree. But that's OK, it's the internet, all opinions are essentially meaningless.

[nots]

Well, since were into mind reading now, I'm pretty sure that you don't "respectfully" disagree. But that's OK, it's the internet, all opinions are essentially meaningless.

If I wasn’t respectfully disagreeing I would have called you out in ElDiablolo terms.
But again, I will anxiously await any negative post about the blue team fromyou. Looking forward to being proven wrong.

[Hornsby]

If I wasn’t respectfully disagreeing I would have called you out in ElDiablolo terms.
But again, I will anxiously await any negative post about the blue team fromyou. Looking forward to being proven wrong.

Oh c'mon...NOBODY looks forward to being proven wrong, but it'll happen time and again to all of us.

Keep your eyes peeled, there are plenty of Blue shenanigans out there, they just look so pitiful compared to Trump and company...

[B-Fly]

Interesting opinion piece in the NY Times...and, yes, I'm conceding that the Grey Lady has produced something of value.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/o...-politics.html

Wow, okay. As a highly-educated, well-off liberal, that piece obviously hit close to home, and was well written with a lot to think about. That said, I am not sure I understand what, if anything, Edsell is advocating for, or is he just seeking to explain? I dunno.

So as I read it, he's basically setting up a voter-motivation conflict between "economic self-interest", on the one hand, and what he calls "identity-centric" "expressive partisanship" or "affective polarization", on the other hand, saying that voters used to be (like back in New Deal times) motivated primarily by the former, and now they're motivated primarily by the latter. I'm with him so far. Then he spends little if any time speaking about low-income voters who support the Republican Party against their economic self-interest, and focuses pretty much all of his scrutiny on educationally and economically privileged voters who support the Democratic Party against their economic self-interest. And then he clouds things up a bit by shifting from the "economic self-interest" vs. "expressive partisanship" dichotomy to a section where he (finally) considers "issue and principle-based ideology" or "values and policy attitudes". He cites a study that says identity doesn't require values and policy attitudes, and is basically about belonging/picking sides/feeling superior. He seems to suggest that privileged liberals are full of sh!t, telling themselves that they're liberals based on issues and principles, when they're really liberals based on identity-centric partisanship and a smug in-group superiority complex, and that their positions on issues are essentially warped and twisted to support their identity-centric partisanship. He then concludes by suggesting that the identity-centric partisanship may be sticky enough at the margins to tie privileged white liberal to the Democratic Party, but will ultimately be tested and will likely fall apart when and if the Democratic Party actually seeks to implement anything that materially redistributes wealth, power and status from those privileged white liberals.

Did I basically get that right? Or do y'all think I'm misreading?

Now what I think: I think he makes a lot of good and interesting points. But as I said at the start of this probably overlong and overwrought analysis of mine, what's he advocating? Maybe he's just warning the Democratic Party leadership to be wary of the privileged white liberal component of their base. But reading it as a privileged white liberal, what I'm taking away is that I should be self-reflective and self-critical in thinking about why I support the positions and candidates I support, and why I oppose the positions and candidates I oppose, and should examine when and whether I'm doing it out of knee-jerk identity-centric expressive partisanship. That's probably a useful exercise for any of us. But I also reject the suggestion I think I'm reading from Edsell that "issue and principle-based ideology" doesn't really exist in any meaningful way. He doesn't seem to value it as much as I do, and almost seems to advocate for privileged white liberals to check themselves with the hyper-partisan virtue signaling and hatred for "out group" labeled folks, and just honestly go out there and vote in our privileged socio-economic self-interest. Maybe I'm misreading or over-reading that, but I personally reject it. I want to strive to move from "identity-centric expressive partisanship", whenever I recognize it in myself, to real and valid "issue and principle-based ideology" based on empathy and reason, while understanding and respecting rather than having contempt for those who may disagree. And I believe I can do that (and on a great many issues am already doing that) without being self-deceptive or self-superior or full of sh!t.

[TranaGreg]

Wow, okay. As a highly-educated, well-off liberal, that piece obviously hit close to home, and was well written with a lot to think about. That said, I am not sure I understand what, if anything, Edsell is advocating for, or is he just seeking to explain? I dunno.

So as I read it, he's basically setting up a voter-motivation conflict between "economic self-interest", on the one hand, and what he calls "identity-centric" "expressive partisanship" or "affective polarization", on the other hand, saying that voters used to be (like back in New Deal times) motivated primarily by the former, and now they're motivated primarily by the latter. I'm with him so far. Then he spends little if any time speaking about low-income voters who support the Republican Party against their economic self-interest, and focuses pretty much all of his scrutiny on educationally and economically privileged voters who support the Democratic Party against their economic self-interest. And then he clouds things up a bit by shifting from the "economic self-interest" vs. "expressive partisanship" dichotomy to a section where he (finally) considers "issue and principle-based ideology" or "values and policy attitudes". He cites a study that says identity doesn't require values and policy attitudes, and is basically about belonging/picking sides/feeling superior. He seems to suggest that privileged liberals are full of sh!t, telling themselves that they're liberals based on issues and principles, when they're really liberals based on identity-centric partisanship and a smug in-group superiority complex, and that their positions on issues are essentially warped and twisted to support their identity-centric partisanship. He then concludes by suggesting that the identity-centric partisanship may be sticky enough at the margins to tie privileged white liberal to the Democratic Party, but will ultimately be tested and will likely fall apart when and if the Democratic Party actually seeks to implement anything that materially redistributes wealth, power and status from those privileged white liberals.

Did I basically get that right? Or do y'all think I'm misreading?

Now what I think: I think he makes a lot of good and interesting points. But as I said at the start of this probably overlong and overwrought analysis of mine, what's he advocating? Maybe he's just warning the Democratic Party leadership to be wary of the privileged white liberal component of their base. But reading it as a privileged white liberal, what I'm taking away is that I should be self-reflective and self-critical in thinking about why I support the positions and candidates I support, and why I oppose the positions and candidates I oppose, and should examine when and whether I'm doing it out of knee-jerk identity-centric expressive partisanship. That's probably a useful exercise for any of us. But I also reject the suggestion I think I'm reading from Edsell that "issue and principle-based ideology" doesn't really exist in any meaningful way. He doesn't seem to value it as much as I do, and almost seems to advocate for privileged white liberals to check themselves with the hyper-partisan virtue signaling and hatred for "out group" labeled folks, and just honestly go out there and vote in our privileged socio-economic self-interest. Maybe I'm misreading or over-reading that, but I personally reject it. I want to strive to move from "identity-centric expressive partisanship", whenever I recognize it in myself, to real and valid "issue and principle-based ideology" based on empathy and reason, while understanding and respecting rather than having contempt for those who may disagree. And I believe I can do that (and on a great many issues am already doing that) without being self-deceptive or self-superior or full of sh!t.

very well put (esp the bold part)

[gcstomp]

to real and valid "issue and principle-based ideology" based on empathy and reason

This is the simple ideal that should be our aim. <silence> You catch one of the zillion Trump rallies, either up to election night, or since then when it still seems like a perverse campaign rally? They are successful because they are bastions of anti intellectualism, a celebration of self superior over the invading other, who are crossing borders, have dark skin, and are diluting ze motherland. The inane chants, the cheers for overt lies, I see them as simple white nation power drum beating.

D hold accountable to a different degree our peeps, imo. That comedian groper dude caught in a pic miming a squeeze over flak jacket wearing female, he resigned so fast, his crime being one that is such a sliver of nothing compared to what is discovered daily. On this site we were all so critical of Al Franken, for someone who wanted an example of blue figure we were all critical of, but we are playing a game with different rules, holding ourselves to higher standard than R counterparts. This rallying around such a crass and simple a figure at the top at the expense of baseless trashing 4th estate and CIA/FBI/Justice department, just bums me out.

I try to see pov of the other side, really I do. I will try to stay on roto side, not because I find the "conservative" defense so compelling, but because I so transparently dont.

[Bernie Brewer]

to real and valid "issue and principle-based ideology" based on empathy and reason

This is the simple ideal that should be our aim. <silence> You catch one of the zillion Trump rallies, either up to election night, or since then when it still seems like a perverse campaign rally? They are successful because they are bastions of anti intellectualism, a celebration of self superior over the invading other, who are crossing borders, have dark skin, and are diluting ze motherland. The inane chants, the cheers for overt lies, I see them as simple white nation power drum beating.

D hold accountable to a different degree our peeps, imo. That comedian groper dude caught in a pic miming a squeeze over flak jacket wearing female, he resigned so fast, his crime being one that is such a sliver of nothing compared to what is discovered daily. On this site we were all so critical of Al Franken, for someone who wanted an example of blue figure we were all critical of, but we are playing a game with different rules, holding ourselves to higher standard than R counterparts. This rallying around such a crass and simple a figure at the top at the expense of baseless trashing 4th estate and CIA/FBI/Justice department, just bums me out.

I try to see pov of the other side, really I do. I will try to stay on roto side, not because I find the "conservative" defense so compelling, but because I so transparently dont.

Actually, killing two birds with one stone, "we" all weren't critical of Al Franken. In fact, as to Nots' point about Horns not posting anything negative on his team, Horns was one of the first to post his immediate displeasure with Franken going so far as to call for him to resign. I, on the other hand, thought that was a overreaction and I went further to say that I thought that, while not personally liking Franken much as a Policitian, he was one of the more effective voices in countering Trump. He was certainly effective with Sessions' confirmation hearings. So to you, not everyone punched on Franken. And to Nots, while I get his comments with Horns posting a lot of things mostly critical of Trump or Republicans, on occasion, Horns has posted something critical of the blue guys.

[Hornsby]

Actually, killing two birds with one stone, "we" all weren't critical of Al Franken. In fact, as to Nots' point about Horns not posting anything negative on his team, Horns was one of the first to post his immediate displeasure with Franken going so far as to call for him to resign. I, on the other hand, thought that was a overreaction and I went further to say that I thought that, while not personally liking Franken much as a Policitian, he was one of the more effective voices in countering Trump. He was certainly effective with Sessions' confirmation hearings. So to you, not everyone punched on Franken. And to Nots, while I get his comments with Horns posting a lot of things mostly critical of Trump or Republicans, on occasion, Horns has posted something critical of the blue guys.

Awwwww, thanks Bernie! I appreciate that, and good memory, BTW...now I'm gonna have to start (quietly) rooting a bit for the Packers. Shouldn't be all that hard, the Viking owners are such tools...

[Bernie Brewer]

Awwwww, thanks Bernie! I appreciate that, and good memory, BTW...now I'm gonna have to start (quietly) rooting a bit for the Packers. Shouldn't be all that hard, the Viking owners are such tools...

Because we’re all here for our shared love of Baseball, I’ll say this: I wouldn’t say you can’t pitch to both righties and lefties but you’re as close to a LOOGY as you can be. You definitely pitch from the left of the plate. On the other hand, I “try” to pitch down the middle, which is why most of my posts are batting practice pitches for lefties.

\_(ツ)_/

I cracked myself up with this post. It was, btw, meant to be funny!

[gcstomp]

I was just addressing this from nots, "But again, I will anxiously await any negative post about the blue team from you. Looking forward to being proven wrong." and I thought it was the most harmless point as I have a bunch of more critical responses re: that article but slapped my own hand, though I am comforted that the hamster wheel patiently waits. I remembered democrats being generally critical of Franken, who was very popular, as well as effective, imo a rising star, wasnt trying to speak for you Bernie.

[Hornsby]

Because we’re all here for our shared love of Baseball, I’ll say this: I wouldn’t say you can’t pitch to both righties and lefties but you’re as close to a LOOGY as you can be. You definitely pitch from the left of the plate. On the other hand, I “try” to pitch down the middle, which is why most of my posts are batting practice pitches for lefties.

\_(ツ)_/

LOL...yeah, for sure I'm a LOOGY now, but I've voted for a LOT of Republicans in my life...in fact, I voted for Norm Coleman, twice. Bush II twice, and a slew of lesser GOP types down ballot. Really liked Dave Durenberger (former Minnesota Senator), and also voted for him. So I used to be all over the map.

Since I've gotten older, married a woman with mixed race kids, and seen what I believe to be the inequities in the system, I've become much more liberal in my views. I want fairness for all, not just for some, and IMO, that's a huge problem we have in America today. So I skew liberal, but I'm not above voting GOP if the candidate is what I consider to be a good one. My current Congressman, Tom Emmer, a Republican, (he replaced crazy Michele Bachmann), is starting to redeem himself in my eyes...here's an email he sent out today that I can get behind 100%.

Dear Friend,

This Congress I introduced an extremely important piece of legislation: H.R. 4720, the Abby Honold Act.

When University of Minnesota student Abby Honold reported her rape to police in 2014, the trauma she experienced prevented her brain from recalling important details about the crime that occurred - ones which would have immediately led to the prosecution of the perpetrator.

When a person experiences trauma, the cognitive part of their brain which records events, the prefrontal cortex, shuts down. Interview techniques to acquire needed facts from victims are designed to tap into this cognitive part of the brain, leaving those who have experienced trauma unable to recall critical details and information to bring justice to their perpetrator.


Fortunately for Abby, she was taken to the hospital and cared for by a nurse who was trained to use a trauma-informed interviewing method. The nurse utilized her trauma-informed training to access another part of Abby’s brain, a more primitive section, by asking questions about what she smelled, tasted, heard and other sensory information. Through her nurse’s compassion and expertise, Abby was able to recall important details which ultimately aided the investigation of her case and led to the successful prosecution of her perpetrator. Sadly, only seven of every 1,000 perpetrators who do commit the crime of sexual assault will be prosecuted.

Inspired by her story, I have worked with Senator Klobuchar to introduce the Abby Honold Act during the 115th Congress. This legislation is focused on helping our law enforcement officers improve the way they interview victims in crisis through the use of evidence-based, trauma-informed techniques.

Sexual assault is a crime and it is vital for law enforcement to have accurate and complete information to prosecute it as such. For Abby and the thousands of victims each year who experience assault and trauma, this is a key part of their recovery process. The Abby Honold Act is an important first step forward to provide better treatment to victims in crisis and makes certain extreme sexual violence it is treated like the heinous crime it is.

Reached across the aisle, and is simply doing the right thing...

[Judge Jude]

My point was simply to point out the hypocrisy of the situation, and, as I pointed out, I'm sure that it happens on both sides of the aisle. How it may be productive is to educate people on the laws, silly as they may be, and to perhaps spark conversation about how we might limit big money in campaigns.

I will take you at your word. I'm just suggesting that you won't achieve your goal with the approach you attempted. other feedback may have helped confirm that - as well as the dwindling number of posters in the RJ sector.