Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?

[Mongrel]

I wonder if Bloomberg wishes he'd run now.

[Mongrel]

Guardian: Leak Reveals Tillerson Is Also Director of of Bahamas-Based US-Russian Exxon Subsidiary

Whoooops!

[Yoji]

Guardian: Leak Reveals Tillerson Is Also Director of of Bahamas-Based US-Russian Exxon Subsidiary

I just wonder if The Bastard's supporters are going to love him or hate him ove- oh, who am I kidding?

Also, too: Alabama idiot cuts down a tree from a public park for use as a backdrop at a rally. This is going to be a stupid four years.

[Thad]

So I gather that the DNC chair race has become Ellison vs. Perez. I like Ellison, but Perez seems like a pretty good choice too. I know Ellison has some baggage with his former Nation of Islam affiliation, but that seems pretty overblown from what I've seen. As for Perez...well, there's a part of me that's instinctively suspicious of anybody who's the establishment's alternative to somebody who has the support of the progressive wing of the party, but...everything I'm seeing on Perez suggests he's got pretty solid progressive credentials too. Hell, anybody who's gone after Joe Arpaio has my attention.

This seems win-win to me. Is there anybody paying closer attention to this race than I am who can tell me if I'm missing anything?

[Joxam]

So I gather that the DNC chair race has become Ellison vs. Perez. I like Ellison, but Perez seems like a pretty good choice too. I know Ellison has some baggage with his former Nation of Islam affiliation, but that seems pretty overblown from what I've seen. As for Perez...well, there's a part of me that's instinctively suspicious of anybody who's the establishment's alternative to somebody who has the support of the progressive wing of the party, but...everything I'm seeing on Perez suggests he's got pretty solid progressive credentials too. Hell, anybody who's gone after Joe Arpaio has my attention.

This seems win-win to me. Is there anybody paying closer attention to this race than I am who can tell me if I'm missing anything?

All I'll say is never under estimate the huge over blown backlash even the hint of 'Nation of Islam' causes in a lot of whites.

[Mongrel]

Texas Tribune: Trump's sons already selling access to Trump through Texas (supposedly) nonprofit

[Thad]

All I'll say is never under estimate the huge over blown backlash even the hint of 'Nation of Islam' causes in a lot of whites.

Yeah, I definitely get that. (Though I can't help pointing out that Farrakhan's praise for Trump didn't seem to give them any pause.)

But I also feel like (1) it's a legitimately shitty reason to disqualify somebody and (2) most people don't know who the party chair is anyway. There'll be a hue and cry from the usual suspects, but I'm not convinced it'll make a difference among rank-and-file voters. I really don't see the Democrats getting sunk in '18 because too many white voters are worried about Keith Ellison, a man who will not actually be on the ballot. (Wasserman-Shultz and Brazile barely registered in the news this year, and then only because of the Podesta e-mail leaks. Granted, neither of them is Muslim, but party chair isn't a sexy position that gets a lot of coverage in the press.)

I mean, if Perez is going to be better at bringing the unions onboard, and if his existing relationships make him a better choice for outreach to working-class voters, that's a big deal and a big point in his favor -- and it doesn't seem like he's a slouch on social issues, either. He seems like a pretty good choice, unless there's something I'm missing.

[zaratustra]

a good article on why Putin had VERY GOOD reasons to want the election to go the way it went

(hint: when you put string between all the pins on the corkboard it spells O-I-L)

https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-p ... .lz7sk6jju

[Mongrel]

NYT article claims that the drama moments of the campaign (Comey, Wikileaks, etc.) or any one group "staying home" mattered less than people have been supposing and that underlying demographic trends showed Clinton's weaknesses very early on

Interestingly:

For the first time in the history of the two parties, the Republican candidate did better among low-income whites than among affluent whites, according to exit poll data and a compilation of New York Times/CBS News surveys.

Also, apparently it's now confirmed that turnout cratered among young blacks (and that reduced black turnout was the only major turnout decline), so expect some nasty racist infighting among some leftist groups. It's interesting how that earlier argument between young and old blacks (with the older ones saying "Yes, it was THAT bad in the 90's" in favour of Clinton and the younger ones who didn't experience that in favour of Sanders) actually held steady all the way through to election day.

[Thad]

NYT article claims that the drama moments of the campaign (Comey, Wikileaks, etc.) or any one group "staying home" mattered less than people have been supposing and that underlying demographic trends showed Clinton's weaknesses very early on

Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, Clinton's numbers line up with long-term demographic trends.

On the other, her electoral college defeat came down to a relatively small number of votes in a relatively small number of states. And while most of the polls were off by several points, that doesn't mean they were wrong when they showed trends in one direction or the other. (The LA Times was the most accurate poll, and while its numbers favored Trump more than the other pollsters', its trends in one direction or the other tended to match theirs.) Wikileaks and Comey made an impact.

Attributing the election outcome to any one factor is foolish and reductive. But if you're going to pick one, I still think "Clinton was a terrible candidate" is the one to focus on. If we want to expand that to "Clinton was a terrible candidate because she represents a Democratic establishment that a lot of people are sick of," then hey, that's two things.

Also, apparently it's now confirmed that turnout cratered among young blacks (and that reduced black turnout was the only major turnout decline), so expect some nasty racist infighting among some leftist groups. It's interesting how that earlier argument between young and old blacks (with the older ones saying "Yes, it was THAT bad in the 90's" in favour of Clinton and the younger ones who didn't experience that in favour of Sanders) actually held steady all the way through to election day.

Speaking anecdotally, I've seen it in my own family. My aunt voted Clinton; her son voted Johnson. Her daughter turns eighteen this week, so she was too young to vote in this election, but she was pretty nonplussed with Clinton too.

My cousins mentioned her spotty record and her insincere pandering as reasons they didn't like her; he mentioned the "superpredators" comment and she mentioned her comment about always carrying hot sauce in her purse.

You said this over in the economics thread:

It really is a sort of bittersweet find though, given that it again reinforces the fact that modern progressivism still remains so critically dependent on foresighted work done by leftists so many years ago. It's similar to Sanders originally stating that he ran simply because he didn't see anybody from the younger crowd stepping up to do so. It's really amazing and good news that this was found, but it doesn't actually make me feel so great about the future.

Well, it's not an original observation to say that the Boomers sold out. Here are a couple of guys who said it better than I can:




And Gen X, well. It may not be fair to say Gen X has sat the last generation out, because there are a hell of a lot fewer of them than the Boomers. But whether it's lack of engagement or just lack of numbers, they don't seem to have made a dent. The Clintons and the Blairs of the world have really fucked up their parties, and the backlash hasn't come as swiftly as it should have. (Course, the thing about bubbles is that everything looks like it's going great at first.)

On the other hand, I've been watching this shit my entire adult life, and I gotta tell you, the trend's in the right direction. Sanders in '16 still lost, sure, but he did a hell of a lot better than Nader in '00. Occupy Wall Street may have been a failure, but it was a significant step in a road we're on. There is a line from Nader to OWS to Sanders, and it's getting a little bit closer each time. Maybe Hunter's wave metaphor is apt here.

Say what you will about Millennials, but we're engaged. If we didn't turn out to vote for Clinton, it's not because we're lazy or apathetic, it's because we grew up watching Hillary Clinton fuck us at every opportunity. You want to send our classmates off to Iraq and then turn around and try to ban Grand Theft Auto, and then make speeches about how important our generation is to you (hang on, let me just take a minute to announce Tim Kaine as my running-mate)? Yeah, no, it turns out that texting and Twitter haven't destroyed our attention span that much.

There is a movement happening. It's been gaining steam for years. The young generation is right in the middle of it, even if, yeah, its most visible symbol to date has been a 75-year-old man.

And the younger kids -- whatever we're going to call them; hopefully we come up with something less lame than "Generation Z" -- are part of it too. Remember, some of the best political journalism we're seeing right now is from Teen Vogue.

All that said? It's sure taking a long time for the younger generations to have an impact. There's still plenty of time for us to turn out like the Boomers did and give in to expedient cynicism. There's also time for Trump to do irreparable harm before anybody can stop him.

I think the future's positive -- but I'm also worried we'll never get there.

[Mothra]

[Mongrel]

Fuck, it's starting already.

Bloomberg: House GOP Votes to Strip Ethics Office of Independent Status

Other changes would include requiring that any matter potentially involving a violation of criminal law be referred to the Ethics Committee. The OCE also would be barred from considering anonymous complaints, and its jurisdiction would be limited to the last three Congresses.

Now that's transparency!

[Mongrel]

Holy shit they're reversing it.... because Trump chided them?!?!

[Smiler]

Trump endorses the idea, he just told them to do it later. Of course that means everyone is tripping over each other to hail Trump as some sort of hero.

[Mongrel]

Well that's the idea innit?

I just figure they've already confirmed that Trump can already legally do anything he likes (wokka wokka wokka!), so whether or not they do it again later (and yes, the safe bet is that they almost certainly will), it doesn't affect him, so he can use this sort of thing to score easy points. Point being Trump will use anyone and everyone, including congress and I wonder if any of them have figured this out yet.

In any case take the extra year or two with a functioning ethic commission if you can get it.

[Mongrel]

Also, credit where it's due I suppose, it was also publicly opposed by Paul Ryan.

EDIT: Then again, if anyone could have stopped it earlier in the process, it was Ryan. So lol never mind.

[Yoji]

How long until we literally vote for a fox to guard a hen house?

And isn't today like their first day back on the job from Christmas vacation? This is so stupid, my brain might just crawl out of my head and throw itself off a balcony.

In other darkly humorous news, Rebecca Ferguson offered to perform at The Bastard's inauguration, but on the sole condition that she be allowed to sing Strange Fruit.

[Mongrel]

:D

That's so perfect.

[Grath]

Holy shit they're reversing it.... because Trump chided them?!?!

Nope.

[beatbandito]

That tweet is 120 characters. There is no excuse for those abbreviations from someone reporting news.