Monday Open Thread

15 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

1. WOTD from Chris Reeves: "Democratic Values & Litmus Tests"

   The Kos "Nuts and Bolts" series has been a long-time Saturday feature. The one this weekend was particularly good, dealing with the idea of Litmus Tests. 

   Not everybody clicks on the link, so here are some relatively extensive quotes:

   Core Constituency

   Before you begin your campaign, realize that there are some votes that are “baked in.” These voters vote a straight party line, no matter who is on the ballot.

   …
   Values

   For voters who are not in the core constituency of either party, they are more likely to be persuaded by alignment of values: the candidate is simply a vehicle to express their values, regardless of the party.

   …
   Litmus Tests

   Because so many of these issues have become binary divides—you either believe in a right, or not—strongly aligned voters will lose motivation to get out and support a candidate that they don’t think matches their values checklist. 

   At a recent candidate forum, someone brought up the issue that Democratic party elements should run more strongly anti-choice candidates for federal office. The issue was brought up as a silver bullet to win races in red states. “We must stop the litmus test,” contended a campaign consultant. I stood up and said: “Okay. I’m going to give an example: an elected official in a state I know is with the Democratic party on almost every single issue. pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-$15 minimum wage, etc. But they are wildly anti-teachers unions and public schools because they believe that minority children are provided bad education in their district. They have proposed legislation to offer vouchers and remove public service unions.” Immediately, a few people stood up angry: “That’s unacceptable!”  For them, that was their litmus test. 

   Every voter, whether they admit it or not, has some form of litmus test, an issue that drives them to vote. Dismissing an item as “that’s a litmus test we shouldn’t care about” is really saying: your key issue matters far less than my issue.

   The three Item guideline

   When candidates run, they often give a quick punch list of things they want to accomplish. To attract voters and get turnout, these items help define the values a candidate represents. A great example of this is Danica Roem. While Roem answered questions about being a transgender candidate, her winning issue revolved around traffic. 

   In her district, some voters fell into the default groups: defined Republicans and defined Democratic members. That middle group, the group of people who lean one way or another but sometimes turn out, sometimes stay home, can see tangible issues as a reflection of both your values and whether or not your promises seem viable.

   Bob Dole, former Republican presidential candidate, and U.S. senator, once said the secret to winning campaigns was to offer the public three items: a tangible goal you could accomplish if elected; a reach goal that maybe you could get, maybe not: and a third long-term, somewhat pie in the sky goal that would be difficult to achieve quickly.

   When Dole would return to campaign, he would tell his constituents that he had succeeded in goal No. 1, made some progress on Nos. 2 and 3. He would then add to his speech a note that because he had accomplished the first item, he had a new short-term goal, and highlight that it was a sign of him doing something.

   Log in to Reply

2. WOTD2 from Josh Marshall: "Russia".

   Josh Marshall is the best journalist on the planet. I've always believed that history was the best foundation for being a good journalist. I'm not going to quote from this one, as the whole read is essential. 

   Talk about the Manchurian Candidate! In short, the Trump campaign was on the fast track to align US foreign policy with Russia. The campaign was not just coordinating with Russia during the election, but totally compromised, as in bought-out or blackmailed by or ideologically committed to Russia. Trump fired Comey and Yates in a last-ditch effort to save the campaign's goal of aligning the US with Russia. 

   We may have dodged a bullet with Flynn's firing back in January 2018. 

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. One quote, just to give you the flavor.

      Why did Flynn Lie to the FBI?

      What I mean is this: he thought that in a few weeks he’d be the intelligence community and thus also running counter-intelligence. It wouldn’t matter. If it seemed wrong to the Obama people and the career officials in place, he’d be in charge and say it was right. Russia wouldn’t be an adversary anymore. It would be a partner in a new strategic alliance. It would be a new reality, a critical aspiration that is only clear if you put yourself back in those weeks of post victory grandiosity.

      If that’s the case, then why did he lie? Why not just say, “Sure, I talked to Kislyak. It was the right thing to do. He needed to know these sanctions would only be in place for a few weeks.” This is the very good question a colleague of mine asked when I discussed my understanding of these events with him on Friday. Clearly the visit from the FBI suggested that it wasn’t playing out exactly as Flynn and his colleagues imagined. At some level I think Flynn thought that it soon wouldn’t matter. Whatever these Obama-era FBI handlers thought, this investigation would soon be overtaken by events. But in that interview, despite that confidence, he seemed to panic. The investigation was catching up with them and sooner than they would have liked or expected. Flynn of all the players involved knew that by the normal rules he and his colleagues had crossed a major red line.

      There was another critical factor: these weren’t the smartest people. I don’t mean mainly or only that they’re dumb. They’re people who lacked judgment. Almost everyone who found their way into the Trump orbit got there because they weren’t wanted anywhere else and they made an early bet on Donald Trump, someone no one took seriously or expected to win. This is the recurrent story with Flynn, Manafort, Lewandowski and virtually everyone else involved in the effort.

      Log in to Reply

      1. The Trump administration is a hireling of the Captains of Industry and the Robber Barons of Wall St. The only thing that matters is that they win, continue to hold power, and enrich themselves in a never-ending competition with the boys at the Country Club.

         There is no caring, human component to their thinking. You can see it on their faces as they gather at a podium …stark, unsmiling deliverers of mayhem and misery to millions…they should be ashamed. perhaps they are..but they cover up their self awareness with a righteous pomposity that protects them from the truth.

         This is a question for every Republican who is not a multi-millionaire…

         Are you happy now, bitch? We tried to warn you, but your innate racism or sexism or xenophobia led you to elect the man who will bring America to its knees.

         And for all you millionaire Republicans ( or wannabes) …congratulations!..you have set a course for the United States to become a land of poverty and oppression. Don't think about the children who will go hungry so private plane builders can enjoy more profits. Maybe the CEO of Megajet corp. will toss an extra twenty in the collection plate at church…that will surely take care of the sick and hungry.

         Sleep well tonight knowing you just gave Donald Trump a billion dollar tax break while taking away health care from 13, 000,000 people. Nicely done…your Momma must be so proud.

         Log in to Reply

3. He's gone all in………

   http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-moore-endorsement-twitter/index.html

   Log in to Reply

4. EJ Dionne on our current batch of despicable, lying, national Republicans:

   Republicans proved one other thing: What they say when they are out of power should never be believed again.

   Their progressive opponents, in turn, should never feel constrained in the future to limit their own ambitions out of deference to empty slogans about the superiority of bipartisanship.

   Jason: please forward this to your pals on Bennet's team. Everyone of them, and the Senator-for-Life himself, needs to read it, understand it, live it. (Not that he has many policy ambitions to crow about, but he can at least quit whining about the lack of bipartisanship.)

   There should never be another doubt about Republican* motives and rhetoric:

   Now that the GOP has the votes, all those statements are inoperative. The party is running roughshod over democratic accountability and falling short of even minimal expectations of congressional decorum.

   The leaders of “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” as the Senate pretentiously calls itself, no longer feel any obligation even to provide legible copies of complex legislation. The chicken scratches scribbled on the margins of their tax giveaway signed away any legitimacy these politicians can claim for their political project.

   * – until this current hideous batch dies off in its entirety. 

   Log in to Reply

   1. I have always had immense respect for the opinions of Mr. Dionne. Perhaps, at some point, the bi-partisanship brigade will open its collective eyes and understand their fealty to Big Money was a fools game all along. Since when did corporations EVER serve anyone but their shareholders? Since when did the powerful and greedy ever offer to stop being powerful and greedy just to help or enrich the lives of the less fotunate.

      And, for faux Christians like Fluffy, spare me the promises of spontaneous charity from the Uber-rich. It has been widely known for many years that most charitable giving comes from millions of small contributors while the uber-rich tend to not be so generous. There are notable exceptions (Warren Buffet comes to mind) but I stress; those are exceptions.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Charity donations range based on a number of factors — and it is incredibly hard to determine extent of giving based on self-report or analysis of public documents.

         What is absolutely clear is that the modern safety net spending could not be replaced by charitable giving.   The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

         or Can Private Charity Replace the Social Safety Net?

         Log in to Reply

         1. You’re so wrong.  Ask any filthy rich person — they all know how incredibly well charity works — our fawning society and our adoring politicians are always giving them all the free shit they might ever want!

            In America you just have to be smart enough to be born into the 1% and you’ll never need any of your own money . . . 

            Log in to Reply

5. When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing https://t.co/SIoAxatCjp

   — Sarah Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) November 3, 2016

   Log in to Reply

   1. That was then. This is now.

       

      Log in to Reply

   2. There really is a tweet for every circumstance. 

      Log in to Reply

6. Where's our Voice of Reason™ in this partisan hell-hole?  Did you get arrested at the Westboro protest today? Caught taking a drink from the Soda Fountain of Justice, so-to-speak?  (I'd embed the link but when I do the system boots me out). 

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. Soda Fountain of Justice, stream on!

      

      Log in to Reply

7. Nearly no Democrat would defend what Trump has done (even with what's known to date), if it had been done by a Democratic president. 

   Nearly every Republican defends what he has done.

   That's the Difference.

   Log in to Reply