US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Great Rumbler]

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee....The intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin....The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump.

....Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians.

whew lads

[agrajag]

Isn't that old news? I could have sworn I've read an almost exact article weeks ago about Trump aides being in contact with Russians and about their server communicating with Russian servers, etc.

[agrajag]

This isn't really about people trying to overturn the election results. Everyone is looking for the smoking gun that connects Trump's ties with Russia.

[Trent Dole]

This isn't really about people trying to overturn the election results. Everyone is looking for the smoking gun that connects Drumpf's ties with Russia.

Literally the entire fucking election?

[benjipwns]

I think it's simple enough to look at the election this way.

Hillary basically played an incumbents campaign, only she never had the comfortable position her team thought she did. The primary was evidence of this NOT because of anything Sanders did but because of the sheer fact that she fell from 70% among Democrats to borderline deadlocked with a 95 year old Vermont Senator who calls himself a radical Leninist before any primaries even happened. She then screwed up the incumbency campaign by taking him on and trying to prove her bonafides, the same thing she did in 2008 which also tanked.

Trump had to throw out all the "rules" because it was his only shot and it was a high risk, high reward campaign that ultimately became high reward because of his opponent playing it safe. Actually, all his opponents. Both in the primary and general. He stumped endlessly in states that should have been clear losses in both the general and primary and it worked. And the media frenzy over him helped dilute everything that would have made him seem like an write-off non-serious candidate ala say Ron Paul.

Both candidates lost voters to the third parties but you're stupid if you build your campaign around "they'll come home." Trump's campaign actively did the opposite, telling Jeb! and crew to fuck off. And it barely dented him with the GOP base. And I doubt Hillary was dented much among the Democratic base if you throw out Obama in 2008.

Like it or not, Hillary's campaign was based a lot on "trust me" with an electorate that plainly didn't. And her backup plan was essentially "TRUMP IS NOT A NORMAL CANDIDATE!"

Trying to work it back to a Comey letter or Russian release of DNC e-mails ignores the fact that an election that everything "we knew" shouldn't have been close was in a position where someone can make an argument for a letter somehow shifting the race more than anything else that happened.

Ross Perot pulled this same gambit in 1992, and George Wallace did in 1968. It worked both times except for the fact that they were third parties. This time, the candidate had a major party to fall back on.

If anything, the Democrats should probably be looking a lot less at why they lost the Presidency and why they got clobbered down ballot yet again. Especially since their next nationwide election is one of those and not a Presidential one. The "farm team" will eventually spit up another high WAR candidate.

[benjipwns]

I think it's simple enough to look at the election this way.

Hillary basically played an incumbents campaign, only she never had the comfortable position her team thought she did. The primary was evidence of this NOT because of anything Sanders did but because of the sheer fact that she fell from 70% among Democrats to borderline deadlocked with a 95 year old Vermont Senator who calls himself a radical Leninist before any primaries even happened. She then screwed up the incumbency campaign by taking him on and trying to prove her bonafides, the same thing she did in 2008 which also tanked.

Trump had to throw out all the "rules" because it was his only shot and it was a high risk, high reward campaign that ultimately became high reward because of his opponent playing it safe. Actually, all his opponents. Both in the primary and general. He stumped endlessly in states that should have been clear losses in both the general and primary and it worked. And the media frenzy over him helped dilute everything that would have made him seem like an write-off non-serious candidate ala say Ron Paul.

Both candidates lost voters to the third parties but you're stupid if you build your campaign around "they'll come home." Trump's campaign actively did the opposite, telling Jeb! and crew to fuck off. And it barely dented him with the GOP base. And I doubt Hillary was dented much among the Democratic base if you throw out Obama in 2008.

Like it or not, Hillary's campaign was based a lot on "trust me" with an electorate that plainly didn't. And her backup plan was essentially "TRUMP IS NOT A NORMAL CANDIDATE!"

Trying to work it back to a Comey letter or Russian release of DNC e-mails ignores the fact that an election that everything "we knew" shouldn't have been close was in a position where someone can make an argument for a letter somehow shifting the race more than anything else that happened.

Ross Perot pulled this same gambit in 1992, and George Wallace did in 1968. It worked both times except for the fact that they were third parties. This time, the candidate had a major party to fall back on.

If anything, the Democrats should probably be looking a lot less at why they lost the Presidency and why they got clobbered down ballot yet again. Especially since their next nationwide election is one of those and not a Presidential one. The "farm team" will eventually spit up another high WAR candidate.

[curly]

Victim blaming 

Anyway I don't get blaming Stein voters. Gary Johnson presumably shaved a lot more votes off Trump than whatever Hillary lost to Stein. The third party situation probably benefited the Dems this time around.

[curly]

It's a bit much to use a term typically reserved for victims of sexual assault on someone who lost a presidential election.

[benjipwns]

"Victim blaming" is actually kinda ideal. It's been the Democrats MO for why not to self-evaluate for going on two decades now since the party imploded in 1994. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" "Messaging failure" and all the other reasons Democrats lose that have nothing to do with Democrats but are other people's fault for bringing it up.

Anyway I don't get blaming Stein voters. Gary Johnson presumably shaved a lot more votes off Trump than whatever Hillary lost to Stein. The third party situation probably benefited the Dems this time around.

We have to factor in that it also is by state. Johnson and Stein getting 10% of the vote combined in California or something isn't going to swing it but will boost their national totals.

From the toss-up states:
Wisconsin: Trump (47.2%), Clinton (46.5%), Johnson (3.6%), Stein (1.0%), Castle (0.4%), McMullin (0.4%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (48.0%), Clinton+Stein (47.5%))
Michigan: Trump (47.5%), Clinton (47.3%), Johnson (3.6%), Stein (1.1%), Castle (0.3%), McMullin (0.2%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (48.0%), Clinton+Stein (48.4%))
Pennsylvania: Trump (48.9%), Clinton (47.9%), Johnson (2.4%), Stein (0.8%), Castle (0.4%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (49.3%), Clinton+Stein (48.7%))
Florida: Trump (49.0%), Clinton (47.8%), Johnson (2.2%), Stein (0.7%), Castle (0.2%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (49.2%), Clinton+Stein (48.5%))
Arizona: Trump (49.0%), Clinton (45.5%), Johnson (4.2%), Stein (1.3%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (49.0%), Clinton+Stein (46.8%))
North Carolina: Trump (49.8%), Clinton (46.2%), Johnson (2.7%), Stein-as-write-in (0.3%)    (Trump+Castle+McMullin (49.8%), Clinton+Stein (46.5%))

Virginia: Clinton (49.8%), Trump (44.4%), Johnson (3.0%), Stein (1.4%), McMullin (0.7%)    (Clinton+Stein (51.2%), Trump+Castle+McMullin (45.1%))
New Hampshire: Clinton (47.6%), Trump (47.3%), Johnson (4.1%), Stein (0.9%), Sanders-as-write-in (0.6%), Kasich-as-write-in (0.2%), McMullin-as-write-in (0.2%), Pence-as-write-in (0.1%)    (Clinton+Stein+Sanders (49.1%), Trump+Castle+McMullin+Pence+Kasich (47.8%))

It's borderline impossible to make this third-party swing factor case unless that Comey letter truly was magic that led to misleading people into voting for Gary Johnson.

EDIT: Added tossing non Johnson votes to their likely candidates. One state then depends on GJ voters to reverse it back, Michigan. A state Clinton blew despite 20 point leads in the primary.

[curly]

"Victim blaming" is actually kinda ideal. It's been the Democrats MO for why not to self-evaluate for going on two decades now since the party imploded in 1994. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" "Messaging failure" and all the other reasons Democrats lose that have nothing to do with Democrats but are other people's fault for bringing it up.

I never read "What's the Matter With Kansas?", did it really try to make excuses for the Democrats? I heard Frank's latest book was basically taking the Bernie line that the Dems brought their troubles upon themselves by not doing anything about (or further worsening) income inequality while in power.

[Mandark]

Like it or not, Hillary's campaign was based a lot on "trust me" with an electorate that plainly didn't.

I know that anything short of a novel is going to be a simplification of what went on, but explanations based on "the people" or "the electorate" feel especially bowdlerized because Trump lost the popular vote. He won thanks to some specifically demographic/regional shifts.

I never read "What's the Matter With Kansas?", did it really try to make excuses for the Democrats? I heard Frank's latest book was basically taking the Bernie line that the Dems brought their troubles upon themselves by not doing anything about (or further worsening) income inequality while in power.

Frank's take is basically that the GOP tricks people into voting against their economic interests by dangling shiny symbolic culture issues, and the Dems could win them back if they offered a real alternative on economic issues.

[benjipwns]

Is there polling on how many people actually heard about the Comey letter? Because I'm guessing 90+% of people who heard about it had already decided on their vote for one.

Trump lost the popular vote.

Ahem, three million illegals voting.

[Mandark]

Feels plausible that the Comey could have made the difference, if only because the margins were so thin. There are probably a dozen correct answers to what lost Clinton the election.

[benjipwns]

The poll, conducted Saturday and Sunday after the revelations, found Clinton leading Trump by 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. That margin was unchanged (Clinton up 3 points, 42 percent to 39 percent) when Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein were included in the poll.

On Thursday and Friday, prior to Comey’s letter to congressional leaders, polling from Politico/Morning Consult showed very similar margins: Clinton led Trump by 3 points in the four-way race and 5 points in the head-to-head matchup, within the poll’s margin of error.

Nearly all poll respondents ― 89 percent ― had heard at least some about the Friday bombshell. But a 39 percent plurality said it made no difference in their vote. Another 39 percent said it made them somewhat or much less likely to vote for her, but that’s driven by nearly two-thirds of Republicans who say they’re less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee. Forty-two percent of independents said the events make them less likely to vote for Clinton.

Those numbers are consistent with the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll and the CBS battleground poll released Sunday, which both had some data from Friday night and Saturday that indicated the announcement might have little effect on vote choices except among those already not likely to vote for Clinton.

From PEC:


I can't seem to find any still working polls except that POLITICO one that asked directly about the letter which is what I want to know more than whether it changed the polls. Also amusingly, every story on the first few pages is about how it had no effect on the election, until November 6th when suddenly it changed the election due to Nate Silver saying it did.

[benjipwns]

Feels plausible that the Comey could have made the difference, if only because the margins were so thin. There are probably a dozen correct answers to what lost Clinton the election.

Yes, true. I just find it odd that none of the DROP THE OPPO worked the other way? But this letter tipped the last couple possessions?

[recursivelyenumerable]

George Lucas is our president.

George Lucas did a trilogy of film about this. Shitty films, but they got their point across I suppose.

I mean if you think about it the bad writing and acting was ALSO prophetic for our time #GeorgeLucasDidNothingWrong

[benjipwns]

Why The Resistance Is The Best Thing That’s Happened To Donald Trump
By offering a zero-sum choice, Democrats have made defending the president a lot easier.
...
Plenty of Americans — many of whom supported the president during the general election — don’t like Donald Trump. They do realize that politics is a tradeoff. A more revealing question pollsters might ask people is: But do you “like” any better Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth Warren, pussy-hatted marchers griping about the patriarchy, or the totalitarians blocking Education Secretary Betsy Devos from walking into a public school?

That’s the choice #TheResistance — whose mantra, let’s face it, has synched with the national Democratic Party — has created for many moderate Republicans, right-leaning independents, and movement conservatives concerned about Trump. Which is to say, they offer no choice whatsoever. They offer plenty of hysteria, hypocrisy, and conflating of conservatism with Trumpism for political gain.

For pundits on the Left, the idea that conservatives can judge the presidency issue by issue is completely unacceptable. As important as attacking Trump is, depicting conservatives as fellow travelers who enable fascism confirms every preconceived notion they harbor about the Right. As Scott Adams put it not that long ago:

But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons.

In a recent Atlantic piece titled “The Anti-Anti-Trump Right,” by Peter Beinart, the subheadline reads: “For conservative publications, the business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump.” As is customary these days, the Left, much like Trump, questions the motives of political foes rather than addressing their arguments. Beinart goes on to name the two only honorable conservatives in the entire country (according to Democrats), David Frum and David Brooks. For them, Beinart contends, conservatism is “prudence, inherited wisdom, and a government that first does no harm.” Sure it is. Everyone else is a moral coward and a hypocrite for failing to support liberals in their fight to …

… in their fight to do what, exactly?

quoting Scott Adams three paragraphs into your column

toxicz • 17 hours ago
Not only made defending Trump easier.. the left has Played its hand as to its REAL Agenda.. Destruction of the US Constitution and individual Freedom of choice and liberty.

The Democrat party finally showed its Traitorous intentions.. and gives REAL America an ability to Choose what is best for America...

[Nola]

I honestly hate this either/or framing of Hillary's loss.

Hillary's problems were multi-faceted. She was attacked in unprecedented ways but her campaign also failed strategically and on many fronts.

The case can certainly be made that Comey, Russian interference and/or the media framing of her was the tipping point that swung the election in key states.

However, it can not be ignored that the Hillary campaign's strategy and operations as a whole failed to penetrate outside cities in key battleground states and that made her more vulnerable to low turnout. She and her campaign severely mis-diagnosed her electoral map strengths and weaknesses and what campaign messaging would be most effective. On top of that her campaign was not even cognizant throughout that certain states were critically vulnerable.

That Trump himself had some late game scandals that harmed his prospects as well.

Obama won 40% of the vote in 46 counties in Ohio in 2012. Hillary won 40% in only 16. Stuff like that illustrates to me this was not just some late game sabotage.

So on the one hand a person could argue external forces cost her the election. Another, equally strong case could and should be made that the Hillary campaign failed strategically to provide a message that could either mobilize enough core supporters to overcome her own setbacks the way Trump did, or was distributive enough amongst key state populations that some sort of set back that damaged her core enthusiasm wouldn't totally doom her because her campaign still penetrated in some capacity, to secondary or tertiary demographics.

[Mandark]

Yes, true. I just find it odd that none of the DROP THE OPPO worked the other way? But this letter tipped the last couple possessions?

Other oppo "worked" at points through the campaign; pussygate coincided with Trump dropping sharply in the polls (though it was also after the first debate). That letter just happened to trigger a huge amount of media coverage (with the attendant social media shares), on a topic that had been presented as a serious scandal for a long time, closer to the election than anything else.

I didn't realize during the election just how much exposure people were getting to the e-mail stuff. It's pretty striking in retrospect.

[Nola]

I can't seem to find any still working polls except that POLITICO one that asked directly about the letter which is what I want to know more than whether it changed the polls. Also amusingly, every story on the first few pages is about how it had no effect on the election, until November 6th when suddenly it changed the election due to Nate Silver saying it did.

We can infer pretty well from the undecided voter swings. There's also a pretty good breakdown here:

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign

There are also reports from people who worked on the campaign about how internal polling showed Clinton's lead cratering in states like Michigan after the letter. If it wasn't already after midnight here I'd dig them up. If you press me on this tomorrow I'll find them.

The case can certainly be made that Comey, Russian interference and/or the media framing of her was the tipping point that swung the election in key states.

However, it can not be ignored that the Hillary campaign's strategy and operations as a whole failed to penetrate outside cities in key battleground states and that made her more vulnerable to low turnout. She and her campaign severely mis-diagnosed her electoral map strengths and weaknesses and what campaign messaging would be most effective. On top of that her campaign was not even cognizant throughout that certain states were critically vulnerable.

Like I said, I'm not ignoring anything in your second paragraph. I'm just saying that if not for an absolutely unprecedented bit of fuckery from the FBI director, the campaign could have made all those same mistakes and still won.

That Trump himself had some late game scandals that harmed his prospects as well.

Yes, but they were actual scandals and not duplicate emails that had already been reviewed by the July 5th press conference (another absolute travesty of justice that should have had Comey fired on the spot, but I digress) being hyped up as evidence that they'd finally found the smoking gun.

And the point I am trying to get across is that Clinton's poor campaign on several fronts put her in such a fragile position electorally that something like a Comey letter could doom her. So it is not proper in my mind to put the blame solely or even primarily on external forces. It is more nuanced then that.

[benjipwns]

I guess it's a hard thing to backwards check because the polling was so wrong in general. Does a drop in it mean anything, especially when it bounces back or happens alongside other things like that debate, etc.? Or is it a correction that's coincidental? Especially considering how much pollsters weigh and reweigh their distributions. What are we to take from internal polling showing a collapse while public polling shows a boost, etc.

The e-mails did get a lot of polling, and I think it ultimately became a stand-in for mistrust of Hillary. Even among people who didn't think it specifically was an issue, it was something to point to as a shorthand.

Another polling oddity is I haven't seen much on the third party breakdown, only all the inferences. I know it's improper to ask directly but I still think pollsters should have done it. Pew and UofM's poll that I'm blanking on the name of probably will have stuff when those come out. Maybe the LP will.

lol no they won't, but they should or they won't know if they can keep those voters

[Mandark]

I guess it's a hard thing to backwards check because the polling was so wrong in general.

It was pretty accurate nationally, though.

[benjipwns]

It was pretty accurate nationally, though.

Electoral votes aren't distributed by Pythagorean Record.

[Mandark]

So this is a good a time as any to say I'm not really cool with framing the Clinton campaign's ostensible strategic blunders as purely matters of competence.

I mean, maybe an ad campaign focusing on economic issues rather than Trump's dickishness tips the scales back to a Clinton victory (again, the margins were super thin). But even then the shifts from 2012 to 2016 among white midwesterners would be pretty staggering, and we all saw what they voted for.

The Democratic Party's going to need to win back a lot of those voters to put together a viable coalition, but what is that going to entail?

[Nola]

But Nola, you're acting like the letter was some run of the mill October surprise that every campaign needs to account for. It wasn't. It was absolutely fucking unprecedented and almost certainly violated the Hatch Act.

You think your argument is the equivalent of "the team needed to play better so they wouldn't risk losing on a bullshit foul call," but it's actually the equivalent of "the team needed to play better so they wouldn't risk losing when the other team committed a flagrant foul and broke their star player's neck."

The letter and the Russian hacks were most certainly unprecedented. No disagreement there. I think the depth of the impact is going to be an open question for some time. Though I certainly come down on the side that it was significant.

I think the disagreement is whether that incident was the equivalency of breaking the star player's neck, just a mild contusion or if the player had embraced a more optimal conditioning program, he/she would of been able to buffer the blow better and still win.

My point is merely that there is solid cases to be made on all those fronts.



EDIT: Also, I didn't intend to give off the impression that I was claiming the Clinton's campaign was a failure of competence.

[VomKriege]

Between that and the recent "Pod Save America" talking in detail about why and how crazy Trump handling the North Korea call at Mar-O-Lago is...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/12/politics/trump-shinzo-abe-mar-a-lago-north-korea/

But even as he confronted one of the gravest matters of his office, Trump nonetheless found it impossible to resist dropping in on a nearby wedding reception, already underway in his treasured Grand Ballroom. Trump designed and built the space himself after purchasing Mar-a-Lago in the 1980s.

Entering the ornate room, Trump took a photo with the bride and her bridesmaids, who posed in red gowns next to the commander in chief, mimicking his signature thumbs-up. Then he grabbed a microphone.

"I saw them out on the lawn today," Trump said of the bride and groom, who were standing nearby. "I said to the Prime Minister of Japan, I said, 'C'mon Shinzo, let's go over and say hello.' "

"They've been members of this club for a long time," Trump said of the newlyweds. "They've paid me a fortune."

[Rufus]

I'll be real, while the russian thing is a big issue obviously I do hate how people act like it influenced this past election completely. As much as it sucks to admit this: Trump would have won regardless.

Yeah, I think between toeing party lines and being convinced that America is in shambles (the secret racist option), voting for the guy from TV must have been pretty high on the list of reasons. Russian meddling probably wasn't necessary at all.

[curly]

Clinton did make competence and character an overwhelming focus of her campaign at the expense of economic issues, though. The Times ran an analysis on the messaging in her ads:

Both candidates spent most of their television advertising time attacking the other person’s character. In fact, the losing candidate’s ads did little else. More than three-quarters of the appeals in Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements (and nearly half of Mr. Trump’s) were about traits, characteristics or dispositions. Only 9 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s appeals in her ads were about jobs or the economy. By contrast, 34 percent of Mr. Trump’s appeals focused on the economy, jobs, taxes and trade.

Since the start of presidential campaign television advertising in 1952, no campaign has made 76 percent of its television ad appeals about any single topic. On average, traits typically garner about 22 percent of the appeals. The economy typically generates about 28 percent of the appeals. There’s usually much more balance.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/this-election-was-not-about-the-issues-blame-the-candidates.html?referer=

And obviously this is an oversimplification, but the parts of the Democratic coalition that she failed to turn out were those most likely to respond to a message of economic justice. So going all in on temperament seems like a huge error on Clinton's part.

[Stro]

The real story should  be that most of the country isn't Republican or Democrat, nor do they give a shit about either label. Most people aren't ideologues and vote on single issues or likability. Despite the increasing divide between sides on colleges and the internet, I believe this election was the start of a move the middle for every one, with the core of the major parties being fluid and basically becoming the same side of the same coin and essentially running campaigns as if they were independants that just happen to have more money.

[archie4208]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831830548565852160

Fair and Balanced isn't just a slogan. 

[Stro]

The irony being that CNN/MSNBC were much better allies to Trump before he won the nomination than Fox ever was.

[Joe Molotov]

Please, someone stop all this fake news from being illegally leaked!

[Brehvolution]

The irony being that CNN/MSNBC were much better allies to Trump before he won the nomination than Fox ever was.

[Dickie Dee]

The real story should  be that most of the country isn't Republican or Democrat, nor do they give a shit about either label. Most people aren't ideologues and vote on single issues or likability. Despite the increasing divide between sides on colleges and the internet, I believe this election was the start of a move the middle for every one, with the core of the major parties being fluid and basically becoming the same side of the same coin and essentially running campaigns as if they were independants that just happen to have more money.

Bolded simply isn't true. Strong majority identify GOP/Dem (though there has been some uptick in Independents).

And @ Republicans starting to move to the center

[james]

Both candidates lost voters to the third parties but you're stupid if you build your campaign around "they'll come home." Trump's campaign actively did the opposite, telling Jeb! and crew to fuck off.

Ah yes, the Amirox strategy.

That guy literally posted this every week

"LOL the polls show 6% of voters will vote 3rd party, but in the end less than .5% will, just wait until after  X"

X being:
The end of the primaries
The convention
Labor day
The debates
October
November

Oh shit.

If anything, the Democrats should probably be looking a lot less at why they lost the Presidency and why they got clobbered down ballot yet again. Especially since their next nationwide election is one of those and not a Presidential one. The "farm team" will eventually spit up another high WAR candidate.

Trump scooped up a lot of GOP elected reps.

Guess who replaces them until the next election.

The governor.

Guess which party controls 70% of the state governors?

[benjipwns]

A surprising name has been thrown out as a potential Republican contender for Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat next year: Kid Rock.

The rocker’s name came up as a possible candidate at a Michigan Republican Party convention last weekend. There have been no official decisions announced as of yet.

Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert Ritchie, once said he tended to vote Republican but qualified himself as “more libertarian” to Rolling Stone in 2013. But he has supported several major Republican candidates.

The Michigan native threw his support behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and supported Ben Carson in the 2016 presidential election. He later switched to Donald Trump as he became the party’s nominee.

Rock — or Ritchie — even started to sell pro-Trump merchandise in his official online store including t-shirts with the phrase “God, Guns & Trump” in red, white and blue-colored text.

[Joe Molotov]

This is fine.

[Joe Molotov]

www.rawstory.com/2017/02/he-will-die-in-jail-intelligence-community-ready-to-go-nuclear-on-trump-senior-source-says/

Obama watching this fuckery like

[Brehvolution]

Michiganders have done so well under gop leadership, I have no doubt that kid rock will win bigly.

[Stro]

So all the worst american celebrities are going to be politicians now? At least Jesse Ventura was in Predator.

He's already working for Russia Today, so he's half way there.

State of the Union 2021: My fellow Americans, I can no longer stand by an watch these slack jawed feggits ruin this great nation. Chico Santana will be deported today. Effective Immediately, the Lincoln Memorial will be replaced with the Rick Rude Memorial, and a nation wide Jesse The Body Arm Wrestling invitational will begin starting Monday to crown the king of the senate ring. The nation's capitol will be moved to Minnesota. Who's the boss now, McMahon?

[Great Rumbler]

“As far as settlements, I would like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit,” Trump said, turning to face Netanyahu. “We will work something out. But I would like to see a deal be made. I think a deal will be made. I know that every president would like to, most of them have not started until late because they never thought it was possible.”

“And it wasn't possible, because they didn't do it,” Trump continued. “But Bibi and I have known each other a long time. Smart man, great negotiator. And I think we’re going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. That’s a possibility. So let's see what we do.”

When Netanyahu failed to respond substantively, Trump said, "Doesn’t sound too optimistic but that’s OK. He’s a good negotiator."

Asked later whether they still supported the two-state solution, Trump said he would support whichever deal both parties supported.

“I am looking at the two-state, and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like,” he said. “I am very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one. I thought for a while that two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two. But honestly, if Bibi, and the Palestinians— If Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I am happy with the one they like the best.”

 

[james]

I brought some logs to the fire

Top Senate Republicans have urged the White House to withdraw the Andrew Puzder nomination for labor secretary, a senior GOP source said, adding there are four firm Republican no votes and possibly up to 12.

   
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination/index.html

[Brehvolution]

And, regrettably, not because he's a shithead to his workers but because he was a shithead to his ex-wife.

[Joe Molotov]

“I am looking at the two-state, and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like,” he said. “I am very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.

Meanwhile in Jerusalem

[james]

Puzder OUT

Won't stop.

Can't stop.

WINNING.

[FStop7]

How the fuck does Puzder not clear the bar but DeVos was never in any real danger?!

[Atramental]

President Paul Ryan when? 

(Assuming Pence is dirty as well)

[archie4208]

www.rawstory.com/2017/02/he-will-die-in-jail-intelligence-community-ready-to-go-nuclear-on-trump-senior-source-says/

Obama watching this fuckery like

"Steve, I'm already a demon."

[Stro]

Defeat this dick 

[james]

Reddit has changed their home page for those who arent logged in.

Previous: Directed to "front page" featuring content from 50 selected subreddits (previously 25)
You could choose "all" to see, well, "all"

Now: Directed to "popular" which is "all" but without NSFW material or Trump.

Meltdowns incoming by the fragile right.

[Nola]

Voting for Gorsuch is not going to get you any special favors two years from now when your opponent will be saying the same thing but more intensely. Voting against him will be a blip on the radar by then to most moderates, but it won't be forgotten by an enthusiastic Democratic base. You will end up losing more in demoralized core support then you will gain by pandering this far out to a disinterested and short-term memory abstract centrist voter.

What Democrats should be doing IMO, is taking cues from the Republican party, create a rhetorical message that plays well in these vulnerable spots but is poised to be a tough sell after two years of Trump(think harming the working class, taking away their healthcare, Un-American activity, Washington corruption, disregard for veterans, infrastructure spending) but still fits in with the movement. Influence, don't try and demand control.

[Boredfrom]

I think people should also consider that Political Reality is not equal a Public and Political Perception. I understand that the realities of politics are generally lost for most of the public but perception is also way important

Democrats bracing for town hall protests directed at them ask Bernie Sanders for help
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-brace-for-town-hall-protests-directed-at-them/2017/02/14/923365e4-f300-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

 

It's a valid request. Bernie needs to come get his people. They're going to become the liberal Tea Party and cost us winnable races.

A Berniecrat will not win in WV in the foreseeable future. Or ND, or MT, where there are Senate seats that Democrats absolutely need to hold. And these are seats that they can hold, so long as Democrats don't torpedo the centrists they currently have in those seats.

The truth is that this people percieve the DNC as weak, spineless and hypocritical even if the Political reality is that there is no much that can do using the usual tactics. But this is a problem that, from my outsider perspective, seem to be made by the DNC themselves during the election cycle so is not exactly wise still antagonizing the demographic that is still political active enough to demand opposition.

[Boredfrom]

While nothing improper has been detected, the Baltic nation also launched an investigation by its intelligence service into the relationship between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his longtime personal friend, Igor Sechin, the head of the Kremlin-controlled oil company Rosneft. Sechin and Rosneft are on the blacklist of people and entities designated for sanctions following Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. He was Tillerson’s main business partner when he worked as the chief executive of Exxon Mobil and is a powerful figure in Russia who is both a former member of the FSB (the federal security service that is the primary successor to the Soviet Union’s KGB) and the former head of presidential administration in charge of the security services.

“Sechin’s power derives from his relationship with Putin,” according to a 2008 State Department cable sent from the embassy in Moscow. “As Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration in charge of the security services, there was little doubt about Igor Sechin's power.  He was widely regarded as a very influential member of Putin's inner circle, perhaps even the most influential, with the requisite FSB background to advance the President's (and his own) agenda.”

That influence, and the role Sechin could play in gaining greater power for Russia through oil sales if sanctions are dropped by the Trump administration, is what made him a primary target in the Baltic state’s intelligence investigation of Tillerson. Yet, back in America, the name Sechin was not even mentioned during Tillerson’s confirmation hearings before the Senate.

That last part. uh oh...

[Nola]

What Democrats should be doing IMO, is taking cues from the Republican party, create a rhetorical message that plays well in these vulnerable spots(think harming the working class, taking away their healthcare, Un-American activity, Washington corruption, disregard for veterans, infrastructure spending) but still fits in with the movement. Influence, don't try and demand control.

 IMO that's exactly what they shouldn't be doing.

 Democrats zero'd in on Trump being Un-American while Russians were fellating Trump under (actually it was pretty blatant...over? ) the desk. Trump called out McCain, criticized Khan, called people with PTSD weak etc. It didn't matter.

 Ultimately the Democrats relied on entire demographics and states and used their negative campaign thinking that it would assassinate Trump's chances of ever becoming president.

 In hindsight, Hillary didn't touch the WWC, didn't touch states that her aides pleaded her to visit, and stood for the establishment that both Sanders and Trump used/exploitied to gain groundswell. Obama himself rode on that wave even though he didn't exactly deliver an anti-establishment presidency. He even tweeted that shade against Clinton after the election.

 The Dems need not to follow "Republican" rhetoric, but the exact opposite. Trump's campaign didn't mimic the traditional Republican campaign. If anything his refusal to follow through made him stand out.

My argument is not to be solely negative ala Hillary. Or in that same manner. It is to find some sort of strategy that  incorporates negative and positive messaging that can be used in these vulnerable districts successfully but will not come off like selling out to the liberal base that will actually be paying attention right now and are poised to be much more enthusiastic. That can also be effective in carrying through and into a campaign season. I just threw out some off-the-cuff tactics I think could work depending on how the winds blow. Obviously for the outliers like Manchin, things are a bit different.

And I try to remember a lot of what was effective with the Tea Party was how they managed to sap enthusiasm of their opponents. The most outlandish charges don't necessarily penetrate the Democratic party, but just look at the ACA and go visit GAF. A lot of the attacks were eventually absorbed into the left-wing without proper questioning. For instance the narrative of Obamacare raising premiums and the general sense that Obamacare is failing and unsalvageable.

[team filler]

 

[El Babua]

A trick Democrats forgot is that people in predominantly white working class areas are very fine voting extremely left economically or at least we're not too long ago.

I'd say if their messaging were as good as Republicans, they could win back a lot of these places. But they still haven't found a cohesive message to drill into the electorate. Reps would be crying bloody murder right now if a Dem president was doing this stuff.

[FStop7]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/15/media/steve-bannon-breitbart-matt-boyle-reince-priebus/index.html

So is Bannon lying about being angry with Breitbart or is someone else (Miller) using Breitbart against their former leader?

[team filler]

[Madrun Badrun]

http://www.newsweek.com/allies-intercept-russia-trump-adviser-communications-557283

[T-Short]

My meeting was cancelled this morning so I made this. Already done?