The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[SSF1991]

Hai from Virginia. Just thought to relay info on how our governor's race is going.

It's worth noting that his opponent was a progressive that was endorsed by both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. However, outside of that, Northam was getting basically endorsed by everyone else.

One of Northam's endorsers was our current governor. He's a good guy and has been doing a great job with his policies during his term. He's done things that are pro-LGBT (ia ban on discrimination against state employees for being gay or trans), anti-Trump (he had Virginia join the lawsuit against Trump's Muslim ban), pro-abortion (he vetoed a bill attempting to defund Planned Parenthood) and pro-voting rights (he restored the voting rights to almost 13,000 felons on a case-by-case basis). He's pro-Obamacare and also pro-Medicare and managed to get some gun-control stuff through, including a gun ban on domestic abusers. He's even managed to make Virginia the first state to functionally end veteran homelessness. So by no means was a candidate that he endorsed going to be ignored.

Northam didn't pick up the anti-Trump bandwagon at first either (his opponent actually had campaign ads supporting Obamacare and declaring that "we won't let Trump's hate into Virginia") but he eventually did, calling him a “narcissistic maniac.” Don't fret, though. Northam's policies are actually pretty good, if not even better than our current governor's. He wants even more gun control, an expansion of healthcare, a cut of college costs, more LGBT equality, more women's health benfits (including a pro-abortion agenda), hire better teachers in schools and give them a raise, and so much more. Just about every single thing you're asking for, he's supporting it. He's even trying to appeal to rural voters (something Hillary didn't do) so they can get jobs! He does attack Trump's policies, but spends much more time explaining his own. By the way...about Trumpcare. Yeah he's against that too. And he's against gerrymandering. He even calls it by name on his website, something I've yet to see a Democrat do. I think that's another reason why he won. He's policies aren't too far off from his opponent's, so him winning wouldn't be as much of a loss.

I'm hoping my state continues the path of Democratic and votes blue later this year. A former RNC chair leader and a Trump campaign surrogate are competing for the GOP seat, but we'll see.

EDIT: Just saw this:

 

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/house-committee-cancels-gun-silencers-hearing-in-wake-of-congressional-shooting?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Several GOP members of Congress have been attacked by a mass shooter in Alexandria, Virginia. Among the wounded was Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip.

No fatalities reported so far, but as a result of the shooting, the House hearing on a repeal of regulations limiting access to silencers has been cancelled.

Naturally, the incident has been politicized, and many decry the politicization. At the same time, however, let's remember Newt Gingrich used the Paris attacks on 2015 as an argument for gun rights immediately after it happened. Politicizing tragedy is seen as being in bad taste, but if the tragedy inherently has a political nature, it's unavoidable. 

On 6/13/2017 at 9:38 AM, Patticus said:

Do you believe the Democrats could take back both houses next year? Seems like pie-in-the-sky thinking, but looking at the way Trump's numbers have fallen since Comey was fired and the Special Counsel was appointed, and how well the Democrats are doing on the generic ballot, I don't know what's doable and what isn't any more.

The House, possibly, especially given the blow gerrymandering is taking in the courts so far, though voter ID laws and felon voting changes could end up altering the outcome.

The Senate is far less of a given, as shown in this map. For starters, the Democrats already are defending most of the seats, many of which are in states Trump won. They'll need a good 50-state strategy to keep seats in Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, etc. They do have incumbency and midterm advantages, however, which will give them an edge over any Republican opponents.

Assuming the Democrats pull off a strong showing and keep every Senate seat, they still need 3 more for a majority. Nevada would be the easiest by a huge margin. After that, however, the options are more limited. Arizona's GOP margin has been slipping, but it's still reliably red. Jeff Flake, the incumbent GOP Senator, won the seat by 49-46 in 2012. However, it must be considered that he will have an incumbency advantage (which amounts to about 10% as memory serves), and that it was a Presidential election year where Democrats turned out and won the vote. His incumbency advantage will possibly be cancelled out by Democratic enthusiasm and Republicans disillusioned with Trump, but it's a big if, and really boils down to whoever runs against him. If Dems float a very moderate candidate like Clinton, they have good odds.

As for the third seat... there are really no options. While Texas has been shifting blue, it's not enough for a flip, though court cases against voter ID there could make Democrats more competitive. Joaquin Castro was more popular than Ted Cruz in an opinion poll, but he has declined to run. Last I checked, Cruz's approval was equal to the Democratic frontrunner for the Senate race, but the fact it's a red state means Cruz will have a decent advantage from "lesser evil" voters.

Nebraska had a Democratic Senator as recently as 2013, so it's not entirely off the table. However, it's going to once more boil down to a strong 50-state strategy that emphasizes populist issues as much as social justice ones. People who are religious, pro-life, pro-gun, or otherwise conservative need to feel welcome as part of a Democratic coalition that is pushing key policies like healthcare expansion and economic well-being. Given Tom Perez' poorly chosen remarks on abortion several weeks' back, it remains to be seen how much the Democratic establishment is interested in appealing to voters from smaller states, which will be key to taking the Senate.

There are two hypotheticals I can think of that would put the Republican majority in real danger.

One: Susan Collins, Republican from Maine, is planning a run for Governor. If she resigns prior to November 2018, then the electoral law requires that a special election be held for her replacement in the midterms, who will serve until 2020. If she resigns after the midterms, the special election is held in 2020 for a full term. Given she has job security, it's unlikely she'll resign her post until she's guaranteed the Governorship. On the other hand, she's so enormously popular as a moderate Republican she could resign in early 2018 and still likely win.

Two: A Senate vacancy occurs in another swing state. While Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California is the oldest at 83, the oldest Senators are overwhelmingly Republican. Notable GOP seats are John McCain's in Arizona and Chuck Grassley's in Iowa. At 80 and 83, respectively, it's not off the table that health issues could result in a vacancy prior to 2018. As with Collins' seat, if the seat becomes vacant prior to the midterms, the seat goes up for grabs in the midterms.

It's rather morbid to look at potential vacancies like this, yes, but the GOP did it with Ted Kennedy's seat after he died after Obamacare's passage.

[Volphied]

20 minutes ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/house-committee-cancels-gun-silencers-hearing-in-wake-of-congressional-shooting?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Several GOP members of Congress have been attacked by a mass shooter in Alexandria, Virginia. Among the wounded was Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip.

No fatalities reported so far, but as a result of the shooting, the House hearing on a repeal of regulations limiting access to silencers has been cancelled.

Naturally, the incident has been politicized, and many decry the politicization. At the same time, however, let's remember Newt Gingrich used the Paris attacks on 2015 as an argument for gun rights immediately after it happened. Politicizing tragedy is seen as being in bad taste, but if the tragedy inherently has a political nature, it's unavoidable.

lol

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The irony could have hit them any harder, could it?

[Tani Coyote]

2 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

The irony could have hit them any harder, could it?

The strangest thing is this is being used to celebrate gun rights by those on the right.

The rationale? The fact the attacker was quickly subdued by the armed security personnel on sight, who only had pistols. Had Scalise's security detail not been there, things could have gone much uglier.

Those seeing this as a victory for self-defense allowances are conveniently overlooking these police are people trained to react in an instant to any threat. They're not the civilians who shake fists at mandatory gun safety classes and openly carry a gun on their hip everywhere they go.

If anything, today's events highlight how good well-trained gun owners would be, not ordinary people who just so happen to have guns. Unfortunately, putting people through extensive classes and training on gun safety, use, threat response, etc. is seen as an infringement on personal freedom. Which is odd, given firearm rights are suspended in most jurisdictions for a criminal offense, which establishes gun ownership is indeed not a right, only something responsible citizens get to have. The opposition to formal firearm safety and use training is even stranger given it would actually make the militia ideal Second Amendment advocates sometimes bring up more realistic.

I think today should serve as a case to expand firearm training provisions if anything. Given the nature of Congress at the moment, history literally could have changed if not for those two policemen being present. Instead, two people who are mentally and physically conditioned for these kinds of situations took quick actions and made sure the only fatality was the gunman.

[shdowhunt60]

10 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

The irony could have hit them any harder, could it?

Not really. I mean, hell the shooter being as completely inept as he wask, him having a silencer might have as well prevent even more injuries

 

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

The strangest thing is this is being used to celebrate gun rights by those on the right.

The rationale? The fact the attacker was quickly subdued by the armed security personnel on sight, who only had pistols. Had Scalise's security detail not been there, things could have gone much uglier.

I mean, it's almost like having people who can immediately respond to a threat with force can save lives.

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

Those seeing this as a victory for self-defense allowances are conveniently overlooking these police are people trained to react in an instant to any threat. They're not the civilians who shake fists at mandatory gun safety classes and openly carry a gun on their hip everywhere they go.

And who do you see that does that? Generally speaking, if you're going to spend $300-600 on a handgun, plus whatever more for ammo with the intent on keeping it on their person... You're going to see them train with it.

The only people I ever see scoff at training are the people who are literally just given their weapon. Police namely. It's an old story, cops never practice with their duty weapon until it's time to make their yearly qualifications... And even then, those are lax.

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

If anything, today's events highlight how good well-trained gun owners would be, not ordinary people who just so happen to have guns. Unfortunately, putting people through extensive classes and training on gun safety, use, threat response, etc. is seen as an infringement on personal freedom.

It kinda is, isn't it? I'm not advocating that people shouldn't DO these things. They should absolutely be doing so.

Here's my thing. Actually go to a lot of these classes. Seriously, even if it's just to pop by and see who's there, and take note of whoever's there. You have some cops. You have some military. But here's the thing, the overwhelming majority of them? Civilians. People are already DOING these things. Why do we need a law to tell them that they need to be doing so though?

 roF

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

which establishes gun ownership is indeed not a right, only something responsible citizens get to have.

For what it's worth, I disagree with this. Especially when it comes to non-violent offences. This kind of treatment to felons is why you have people becoming repeat felons, that get involved in progressively worse crimes that include actual violent crime. You back them in a corner, and they think they have nowhere to go, and there's nothing they can do, but continue on the path they already set out on. How we treat convicted felons is a different story, and for what it's worth a judge can still give a felon back his right to arms if he so wishes.

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

The opposition to formal firearm safety and use training is even stranger given it would actually make the militia ideal Second Amendment advocates sometimes bring up more realistic.

Nobody opposes formal firearm safety and training. What's opposed is the federal mandating of these things.

8 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

I think today should serve as a case to expand firearm training provisions if anything. Given the nature of Congress at the moment, history literally could have changed if not for those two policemen being present. Instead, two people who are mentally and physically conditioned for these kinds of situations took quick actions and made sure the only fatality was the gunman.

Without diminishing what the secret servicemen did, or the quality of their training (likely) is... all they did was suppressive fire until police could arrive on the scene. And on top of that... Frankly the shooter himself was really shit. He opened fire, and hit Scalise who was just standing there on Second Base in the hip. We're talking about a shoot that was maybe what... 50-100 meters out? Hitting a man in the chest with a rifle at that range is a really fucking easy shot, and there would be no two ways about it. Scalise would've been dead then and there. I've noticed the trend of antifa going out and buying guns, and this is about the level of marksmanship I'd expect.

So I mean, yeah, Secret Service members being trained to do what they did certainly helped... This is isn't exactly outside of the realm of reason of what most people couldn't already do. And really, the thing that gets me is that these secret servicemen were apparently only armed with revolvers.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The GOP minority leader in the Colorado House of Representatives used the Alexandria shooting as evidence of a violent left and reason to donate to his PAC.

Some people have no fucking shame.

Sean Hannity, meanwhile, continues to gripe about the violent left, doing the usual tactic of accusing the left of violence and hate. Because the right has a shortage of hate. As for violence, the right objectively is more invested in the state apparatus. Of course it looks less violent (mass shooters aside). There's the concept of legal violence. The right has no need to be privately violent against people who it routinely denies food, employment, and basic rights through the force of law. The bootstrap myth is peddled so one can ask with a straight face why large numbers of people get agitated when they're told to choose between their food and their families, or when they face systematic discrimination in employment and politics, or when members of their community are assaulted or even killed by law enforcement.

You'd think after the French and Russian Revolutions, it would be established the masses get pissed off when denied basic things. Alas, history repeats itself.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

I mean, it's almost like having people who can immediately respond to a threat with force can save lives.

People who are actually conditioned to respond to this sort of thing. These weren't people who just happened to have guns and took a safety class. As security detail, it is literally their job to prepare for this situation.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

And who do you see that does that? Generally speaking, if you're going to spend $300-600 on a handgun, plus whatever more for ammo with the intent on keeping it on their person... You're going to see them train with it.

I think that's highly optimistic.

There's no data here, though, only assumptions.

So why not force everyone by default to make sure there's nobody slipping through the cracks?

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Police namely. It's an old story, cops never practice with their duty weapon until it's time to make their yearly qualifications... And even then, those are lax.

Yet another argument to roll back policing in this country.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Why do we need a law to tell them that they need to be doing so though?

To take care of the people who aren't.

For those who are already doing it, good on them. They're not inconvenienced by this.

This is literally the purpose of laws, though. To account for people who aren't acting on their best behavior. Most people can be trusted not to randomly punch others in the face, but it's good to have police and sentencing for those who can't.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

 This kind of treatment to felons is why you have people becoming repeat felons, that get involved in progressively worse crimes that include actual violent crime. You back them in a corner, and they think they have nowhere to go, and there's nothing they can do, but continue on the path they already set out on.

No, I don't think lack of being able to own a gun pushes people into crime. Diminished economic opportunities and weak social support does. The fact most repeat crime is financial in nature is evidence of this.

Of course, actively working to remedy these underlying economic inequalities that make crime an appealing option is big government. Funny how that works out.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Nobody opposes formal firearm safety and training. What's opposed is the federal mandating of these things.

Which is hilarious, because at the end of the day, being controlled by your state government isn't too different from the federal government. Scale is smaller, sure, but there's still a faraway body making decisions for you.

If one wants true autonomy from the state, they should have such rules decided locally. Otherwise it's just a reduction in distance.

That said, however, the federal government is more reliably objective overall. It's not filled with politicians drooling at the prospect of eliminating firearms, or it would have been done already. It's going to likely be more balanced than any state body.

9 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

So I mean, yeah, Secret Service members being trained to do what they did certainly helped... This is isn't exactly outside of the realm of reason of what most people couldn't already do.

Frankly this just makes the case for armed citizens weaker. What if the shooter had been young, or the police had arrived later?

With just small arms, I think the security would be toast. Nay, any ordinary person would be as well.

Run, Hide, Fight is proven to once more be an effective strategy for ordinary people. Unless you're in immediate danger, leave engaging the shooter to law enforcement.

[Nepenthe]

So this is the kind of stuff the GOP is sending out in Georgia for our special election (not my photo):

"You'll let the liberals win," like this is nothing but a damn sports game or something.

Classy.

[KHCast]

"You risk our values"

fuck your regressive discriminating old fashioned values. The fact that's a point of concern, really pisses me off

[Tani Coyote]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/11/bikers-for-trump-dips-toe-in-local-politics-with-handel-ossoff-contest/

Meanwhile, big muscular biker dudes are going door to door in groups encouraging people to vote for Handel. I assume this doesn't have intimidating undertones at all.

http://www.newsweek.com/handel-ossoff-threats-georgia-runoff-626325

Political violence's normalization continues. Handel and her neighbors received several packages with powder in them, while Ossoff has hired security detail in response to threats.

Both Ossoff and Handel condemned the Alexandria shooting, but I can't help but feel it's a matter of time before political violence becomes more normalized and widespread. It's an incredibly divisive time where peaceful mass action is steadily losing appeal, while the right uses violent incidents as reason to double down on harsh responses and gives lukewarm responses to attacks on members of the press.

Weimar Germany saw hundreds of political murders in its early years, mostly of left-wing politicians due to a lack of interest in the right wing courts to prosecute the offenders. The political violence only started to ebb after the Foreign Minister was assassinated, seemingly causing a calm in German politics that made such violence unacceptable.

I don't know if we can still have a great coming together moment. Trump ran too divisive of a campaign, and there just doesn't seem much interest in uniting as a people. It's going to take something really profound to heal this rift.

[Nepenthe]

I can't muster up that much sympathy for politicians getting caught in the violent fallout of what's been going on. We use war metaphors to describe social ills. We almost always respond positively to military action and budget increases. There's numerous media outlets out there saying dark-skinned Muslims and Latinos as "coming for you," yes you, all the way in the town of Bumblefuck in No Commerce County, Wyoming. We talk about the second amendment as necessary to stave off a tyrannical government, and that any attempt to fix our gun laws is part of a conspiracy to make it so that law abiding citizens can't protect their country in case they need to.

There's been a constant narrative of some large existential threat coming for white people and that they should be utterly pants-pissing terrified for decades now that I'm surprised shit like this hasn't happened more often and sooner. I'm also surprised but not surprised that the GOP that's been really adamant on making obvious political power grabs for the sake of their wallets and job security, even against the wishes and pleas of their own constituents, are surprised that someone thought this probably counted as tyranny and tried to kill Scalise with a gun.

"You need guns to fight back tyranny... wait, not our tyranny!"

[Volphied]

While America is distracted by the shooting, Turtle McConnell is working hard to repeal Obamacare

Many thousand Americans will soon die. But their lives don't matter as much as the life of one shot congress critter.

Once Republicans finally kill the social contract, violent outburst from desperate people will become a daily occurrence. Bet the GOP will be acting shocked.

[KHCast]

Honestly, the moment Trump won, I knew that there was no way in fuck we could simply unite. Would it be great if we could? For sure, but there are to many dividing factors and goals each party wants at this point that I don't think a compromise is possible unless one side decides to abandon some big selling point of their party

[Neon Zephyr]

30 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

"You need guns to fight back tyranny... wait, not our tyranny!"

 

22 minutes ago, Volphied said:

Many thousand Americans will soon die. But their lives don't matter as much as the life of one shot congress critter.

This is pretty much the long and short of it.

Ironic when the Founding Fathers the GOP want to basically worship basically had said "enough" to the British Parliament for doing more or less what they're doing to their own constituents now. Except worse, because instead of just taxing the people, they're taking away the things those taxes are meant to pay for (taking care of the nation in general).

No wonder France looked at us and Britain and went "Yeah, no, we'll learn from history, thanks." 

Pushing people back against the wall isn't how you make peace. When people have nothing left to lose, they will lash out in any way they can. 

And those lax gun laws the GOP are now going to shoot them in the foot. Literally, in some cases.

(Note: I do not condone violence, of course, I shouldn't have to say it. But, I am not at all surprised that someone finally felt cornered enough to bite)

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Honestly, the moment Trump won, I knew that there was no way in fuck we could simply unite. Would it be great if we could? For sure, but there are to many dividing factors and goals each party wants at this point that I don't think a compromise is possible unless one side decides to abandon some big selling point of their party

Don't be too quick to throw the idea out, however.

Only 20% of Americans think the AHCA is a good bill as is. Even deep red Kansas has only 8% saying it's good as is. McConnell, meanwhile, allegedly warned his closed door meeting attendees that if they don't pass a healthcare bill, the Democrats will regain power and push for single payer. Obamacare was a giant compromise and basically a colossal failure. The moment Democrats regain power, if the GOP doesn't have some kickass legislation (which it likely won't, given the Freedom Caucus will shoot down whatever the Senate puts forth), they'll be in little mood for amending the current system. We may not get full single payer, but we're going to see a tearing up of the system like never before. And frankly, Trump probably wouldn't stand in their way if he's still President, provided he gets to attach his name to it.

Meanwhile, the GOP Governor of Nevada defends the Medicaid expansion, while feeling the GOP focuses too much on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage over economics. He's likely going to sign legislation making Nevada the first state to offer a Medicaid buy-in, which will create a new model and a de facto public option all states and the federal government can consider.

On top of the defeats the GOP is suffering in the courts over voter IDs and gerrymandering, they may lose much bigger than they anticipated in the midterms, and if that happens, they'll need to rethink their platform. The GOP is a minority party by default, and relies on legalese - small state bias, voter suppression tactics, etc. - in order to remain politically relevant. If the Democrats win plenty of state and federal seats next year, they'll be in a position to redistrict seats for a maximum Democratic advantage; the Dems almost always have an advantage in a fair race due to their larger numbers. For the GOP to overcome that, they're going to need to rethink their policy priorities. They need to court young voters and minority voters, or they're going to fizzle out. They can't hope to gerrymander seats forever.

What I'm trying to say is, I think political realities and the power of economic populism - something that carried Trump to power - are going to force the GOP to do a recalculation, or be forced into a New Deal era-esque obscurity. Healthcare is already looking to be one of the issues that will allow Democrats to trounce the GOP in the polls, now that it's apparent Obamacare, the pre-Obamacare system, and the AHCA are all unpopular ideas. The only real way forward now is the public option or some form of single payer.

Now of course, there are plenty of issues besides raw economics; the social justice debate within the Democratic Party is evidence enough of that. But economic populism is ultimately the big unifier, the one issue that can get people from all backgrounds to work together.

[KHCast]

1 hour ago, Neon Zephyr said:

 

I don't know if we can still have a great coming together moment. Trump ran too divisive of a campaign, and there just doesn't seem much interest in uniting as a people. It's going to take something really profound to heal this rift.

I'm just bouncing off what you had said. Coming together in one goal seems extremely difficult at this point

for some reason it's quoting @Neon Zephyr instead of @Lord Liquir (Ogilvie)

[Tani Coyote]

4 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I'm just bouncing off what you had said. Coming together in one goal seems extremely difficult at this point

Hard yes, but not entirely impossible.

All depends on what a few key players do with their moves on this big chessboard over the next 17 months. There's room for optimism but also room for pessimism.

We managed to survive the Civil War, but that's largely because Andrew Johnson folded on Reconstruction and so the South was allowed to embrace Jim Crow as a compromise that would last a hundred years. I don't think we're going to see the Dems openly enabling problems with the GOP's platform in the same way.

[Candescence]

Trump is now officially under investigation for obstruction of justice. And he's apparently so livid that firing Mueller is now a legitimate option as far as he's concerned.

Even his aides and allies are desperately trying to keep him from taking it, and they're admitting all of this damage is effectively self-inflicted. And everyone but Trump himself knows that getting rid of Mueller would be suicide similar to the Saturday Night Massacre, and even if the senate doesn't immediately reinstate Mueller as an independent investigator outside of the reach of the president and the department of justice, it'd still unambiguously obstruction of justice, and a political firestorm that would hand a massive weapon the Dems - they'd be able to fire the "Crooked Hillary" claims right back at Trump, and they could run a hardcore "lock him up" campaign and be justified in doing so, along with rather apt comparisons to Nixon.

Seriously, I can't fathom how Trump doesn't seem to get that he's not above the law.

[Volphied]

14 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Seriously, I can't fathom how Trump doesn't seem to get that he's not above the law.

70 years of an extremely privileged life.

[Tornado]

I don't think Rand Paul would be particularly surprised that someone saw a GOP leader as contributing to tyranny. I'm sure he certainly regrets the statement now, but it's hard to frame it as a "gotcha" for the Republican party. Find a tweet where Mitch McConnel or Paul Ryan said something like that (and I wouldn't be surprised if one existed) and it would work much better.

[KHCast]

Trump is putting travel restrictions between the US sand Cuba

http://qklnk.co/Z5Ct2h

and given Trumps tendency lately to undo many of Obama's policies(or attempt to), wouldn't surprise me if this is just another attempt to "fix" what Obama did 

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/unprecedented-early-vote-6th-district-but-what-does-mean/LT8LupjNhPCd80NZaxZLGP/

140,000 early ballots have been cast in the Georgia 6th race. For comparison, the special primary had 196,000 voters and the 2014 midterm has 210,000 voters.

There's no party identification included in the ballots it looks like, so we're going to have to wait until Tuesday to know where this goes. It could be left-leaning enthusiasm, but it could just as easily be conservative pushback. It's expected Ossoff will carry the early vote and Handel the in-person vote; it all comes down to margins.

The GOP is pulling out all the stops on this, trying to tie Ossoff to Nancy Pelosi, saying how the district has a strong conservative record, emphasizing the need to support Trump, etc. Which is funny, given Ossoff has gone the other way and tried to downplay Trump's role in the race (other than his initial run in which he promised to "make Trump furious"). He has avoided calling himself a Democrat, for example. He's tried to keep focus on the district, while emphasizing the issues.

Quite honestly, that might be what lets him win. The GOP is basically trying the Clinton strategy of focusing on demonizing the opponent instead of standing up focusing more on what it believes in.

Understandable, given its policies are increasingly unpopular and quite frankly shit. Very few people want the AHCA, so GOP reps are in a very uncomfortable position.

If Ossoff loses, expect Trump to fall into complacency. He's already touting his latest 50% approval finding from Rasmussen as a great thing. Key to note other polls have a much lower number, indicating either 1) a significant spread or 2) Rasmussen's polling could be better.

Such complacency will make it all the more delicious when he's finally humbled.

Meanwhile, I'm still crossing my fingers for a double win in South Carolina's 5th. The polling isn't as close, but Democrats value the race far more than Republicans, and that could lead to an upset.

[Your Vest Friend]

Oopsy Daisy. That's a lot of data leaked. 

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/19/15827686/georgia-election-ossoff-money

Quote

Handel has attacked that fundraising while raking in large amounts of cash from outside groups herself. The US Chamber of Commerce, Donald Trump, and the National Republican Congressional Committee have all directly raised money for Handel’s campaign, which may in turn be used to fund the anti–outside money attacks.

Moreover, Super PACs have poured millions into the race on Handel’s behalf, and of the donations sent directly to her campaign, 78 percent have come from outside of Georgia (the number is 96 percent for Ossoff), according to the AJC. Ossoff has received money from three times as many donors within the state of Georgia as Handel.

In what hopefully surprises no one, the GOP candidate has been exposed as a massive hypocrite. While Ossoff raises more of his dollar value from out of state, Handel's is still incredibly high. Meanwhile, Ossoff's donations are distributed across a larger pool of people, many more of them in Georgia than Handel.

In short? Handel is the real pawn of an out of touch elite. Ossoff is getting more of his support from the actual people in Georgia, regardless of donation size.

As the article raises, the public image the GOP crafts is extremely dangerous. They are very good at painting Democrats as puppets of Pelosi, and even refusing money from the DNC isn't likely to change that.

Democrats would do good to actively use statistics like these to silence critics of "outside money" by making it apparent the GOP does it too.

Hell, it'd be even better if we could get bipartisan support for mandatory public funding of elections but oh no, that's government spending, and we can't have that, even if it would prevent absurd amounts of spending like what the Georgia 6th is seeing. Do we really need tens of millions of dollars spent on a House seat?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ossoff-handel-blast-ad-tying-democrats-shooting-georgia-house-race

Meanwhile, both candidates have slammed an ad saying that if Democrats like Ossoff win, more shootings like what happened to Rep. Scalise will happen.

I'm sorry but the people who made that ad are objectively pieces of shit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/06/19/daily-202-congressional-shooting-clouds-final-days-of-georgia-special-election/5946e314e9b69b2fb981dd76/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.38f47b715c69

Meanwhile, the Georgia GOP chair is convinced the shooting will give them the election.

Not so fast, I'd say. Scalise backed the AHCA, and that bill's damage to lives is an open secret now. I don't know if many voters would give genuine sympathy to him when he's so willing to destroy other people's lives. People might wish him a recovery, but that doesn't mean they'll wish people like him stay in power.

This is also ignoring the fact a ton of the votes have already been cast early, and Election Day is going to lean Republican anyway. He needs an increased turnout of several points based on polls to change the result. We all thought bodyslamming a reporter would change the Montana race, but it didn't. This shooting might not make a big enough effect to change this race, especially given Ossoff has condemned the violence and is not tied to it outside of some far right delusions.

[Tani Coyote]

http://decisiondeskhq.com/results/georgia-sixth-congressional-district-special/

http://decisiondeskhq.com/results/south-carolina-fifth-congressional-district-special/

Judgment Day is finally upon us. Results are expected to star coming in within 20 minutes.

News reports indicate the Georgia 6th saw a lot of rain today, which made the GOP nervous that turnout would be decreased (the GOP is scared about low turnout for a change because it's expected today's turnout will lean Republican). However, election officials indicate turnout is remaining "slow but steady."

These races may not necessarily predict 2018, but they will indicate 1. whether Democrats can flip deep red districts and 2. if Republican politicians are likely to embrace Trump or move away from Trump.