US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:47 pm

IamNotCreepy wrote:I hope to God Bill Nelson doesn't lose his seat. I don't think he will. Most likely Florida Governor Rick Scott is going to run against him, but despite being elected twice, Scott isn't terribly popular.

I like Bill Nelson. I did a phone interview with him when I worked for the local news station.


I suspect that while Florida famously has a huge elderly population, we also have a famously huge Hispanic and immigrant population. Rick Scott was riding that Trump train all the way, enough that he was being talked about as a VP pick. That could REALLY hurt him among non-white voters in this state, of which there are a lot. With that, and the naturally blue environment, you'd think Scott would have no chance.

But again, I could absolutely see Nelson fumble it.
  • 2

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2685
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:51 pm

All those Puerto Ricans moving in will certainly make up for any fumbling.
  • 1

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch

"When in doubt, meow it out!"- Bex Taylor-Klaus
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Cerignola Olives

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:32 am

Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:All those Puerto Ricans moving in will certainly make up for any fumbling.


I wouldn't be so certain. While Puerto Ricans have plenty of reasons to be angry, it remains to be seen whether they'll actually show up. And while the suburbs have started to lean blue nationwide, there's still a lot of rural areas in Florida that vote red.
  • 3

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2685
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby IamNotCreepy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:02 pm

The thing that worries me about Florida is that although Scott has been generally unpopular, he has gotten a big boost with his handling of Hurricane Irma.

I'm not worried about Bill Nelson fumbling things. He is a pro and seems very level-headed.
  • 3

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: The Yeast of Thought and Mind

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Windy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:39 pm

Team Blue already has the Senate, we just call them Republicans.
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Marcuse » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:16 pm

Windy wrote:Team Blue already has the Senate, we just call them Republicans.


I thought you called them cuckservatives?
  • 5

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Windy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:21 am

Unless you elect Google's CEOs, you don't really elect your government, so it doesn't matter who wins. Our corporate overlords realized that money and power triumphs over ideology and principles. Red and blue are merely distractions to turn and divide the plebs against each other. The only political alignment money, power, and corruption follow is authoritarianism, and the government will become more authoritarian over time no matter who you elect. Someday society will collapse because our corporate overlords, in spite of their amorality and mastery of social manipulation, took wisdom as a dump stat, and we deserve it.
  • 1

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby tinyrick » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:39 am

  • 1

YEEEEEEAAAHHHHH!!! Tiny Rick!
User avatar
tinyrick
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:37 am
Location: Underground Bunker, USA
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:48 am

Windy wrote:Unless you elect Google's CEOs, you don't really elect your government, so it doesn't matter who wins. Our corporate overlords realized that money and power triumphs over ideology and principles. Red and blue are merely distractions to turn and divide the plebs against each other. The only political alignment money, power, and corruption follow is authoritarianism, and the government will become more authoritarian over time no matter who you elect. Someday society will collapse because our corporate overlords, in spite of their amorality and mastery of social manipulation, took wisdom as a dump stat, and we deserve it.


Doubtful.

While I might've agreed with you pre-2015 (where I was often chided on this very forum when I said we have severe economic problems and that shit hasn't really changed for a lot of us since the recession), now I don't. Both Donald Trump (the guy who won) and Bernie Sanders (the guy who ran quite a formidable campaign against the presumed winner) both took aims at Wall Street, and Clinton (and Obama, to a lesser degree) was castigated for corporate ties. Now, obviously, Donald Trump gives as much of a fuck about fighting Wall Street as I do about Donald Trump, but the point is that he still won promising to fight those corporate overlords.

It gives me hope in Team Blue (as evidenced by the Tax Bill, Republicans continue to not give a fuck about steering us headlong into an oligarchy, nor do they care about income inequality, and they probably never will), and maybe Democrats needed Donald Trump for them to wake the fuck up and start standing for those things they used to stand for, rather than having mutual masturbatory sessions with Apple executives on Capitol Hill. At the top, the Democrats clearly understand the message as they talk about bringing back unions and fighting income inequality. At the bottom (as seen in these Virginia elections) there were many candidates who outright rejected donations from local business powerhouses and instead went the Sanders way of raising money through the people. It's why I keep saying I hope Democrats find their Teddy Roosevelt, because we've been in this exact position before, and he was the one who basically ended them for a spell.

So Trump's going to be a wash, because it's quite clear from his policy and all the execs he's stacked on his board what he thinks about all this, but I think the next Democrat's going to understand the frustrations of this country better than him.
  • 3

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2685
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Windy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:44 pm

What possible motive could a politician have for doing what's best for the people? We have absolutely nothing to ensure that politicians hold onto their promises other than voting them out, and other than a few recent exceptions, votes are no longer an issue. People tend to vote for whoever their corporate overlords want them to, there's too many ways for them to manipulate the election when you control the media and information. Does it really matter how many promises your local politician breaks if no one knows about it? You'd have a higher chance of success in getting elected by appealing to your corporate overlords. And even the exceptions will no longer exist once our corporate overlords become more experienced in social media and information control.

What they learned from the 2016 election is that they didn't control the flow of information hard enough. They will rectify that mistake very soon. The solution will be called something like "The Freedom Act for People who Love Democracy", and we will welcome our doom with open arms.
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:58 pm

Windy wrote:What possible motive could a politician have for doing what's best for the people? We have absolutely nothing to ensure that politicians hold onto their promises other than voting them out, and other than a few recent exceptions, votes are no longer an issue. People tend to vote for whoever their corporate overlords want them to, there's too many ways for them to manipulate the election when you control the media and information. Does it really matter how many promises your local politician breaks if no one knows about it? You'd have a higher chance of success in getting elected by appealing to your corporate overlords. And even the exceptions will no longer exist once our corporate overlords become more experienced in social media and information control.

What they learned from the 2016 election is that they didn't control the flow of information hard enough. They will rectify that mistake very soon. The solution will be called something like "The Freedom Act for People who Love Democracy", and we will welcome our doom with open arms.


Well, to the first question: politicians are motivated by votes, and even those in safely red or blue seats that never have to worry about competition across the aisle are at perpetual risk of being disposed of in a primary. Of course, this does lead to particularly head-scratching scenarios like...say...low income voters frustrated with a lack of progress voting for a party that always preserves the interest of the rich above all others. I suppose in other words "Voting against your own best interests", but moving on...

As for people voting for whoever their corporate overlords tell them to, they vote for whatever culturally runs in the area they're in. This leads to the above perplexing 'voting against best interests' things and what frustrates me in particular about Trump primary voters, but polarization has little to do with corporations and much more to do with the ability for people to enclose themselves in ideological bubbles on the internet and in real life, as people are increasingly moving to areas where they are surrounded by politically like-minded neighbors. This gets into a much longer screed I have about how the problem is less with politicians and corporations and more with voters being more invested in a game of political football than actual results, but corporations have a profoundly small impact on elections (for reference, see the Bernie Sanders and Trump campaigns, and again, Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs becoming a hot button issue).

The corporate elite controls the media, sure, but with the way the media works, they have a vested profit interest in serving an ideologically diverse content to reach as many viewers as possible. There are plenty of publications and even stations that advance socialism, plenty that advance economic libertarianism, nationalism, ethnic nationalism, globalism, you name it. Again, the problem is less with the media and more with consumer habits.

Of course, Trump is particularly incongruous between what he says and what he does with regards to the corporate elite, which you would think would turn his base away from him. But again, while Fox News doesn't cover shit like that, it's not like people can't go out and figure it out for themselves, but again, people don't want to. They want to live in alternate-reality land, which again has less to do with corporations and more to do with the Political Football Game. Still, even a bubble can't mask a recession, war, stagnating wages, etc. Reality will eventually set in, as happened with Bush Jr.

And judging from the Democratic Party's platform (which some people were mocking, but party platforms have always been simple suggestions for future presidential candidates), they do actually understand that there's a problem that needs fixing, and they've incorporated a lot of Sanders-esque appeal into it. Which you may see as a good thing or bad thing, depending on your political stripe, but at least they're listening. As for Trump, well, for all his incongruity he has to keep going out there and promising that everything he does is for the poor/working/middle class. Which is utter bullshit, but again, reality will eventually set in. Hopefully we won't need another recession to drive it home.

If it sounds like I'm saying we need to hit just above rock bottom (rock bottom being another civil war, a dictatorship, or a police state), then yeah, that's what I suspect it will take. But luckily (strange as it is to say) I think we're headed there, so hopefully we'll have this all figured out over the next decade. If Trump and everything the Republicans were doing was popular, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But Trump's the most consistently unpopular president in modern times and will almost certainly continue to be so. An entire generation despises the party that keeps selling us to these corporations and has put the other party on warning. So as long as we're a democracy and this kind of selling out remains unpopular, I don't think all is lost.

As for the whole "Naming something Freedom so Americans will froth all over it", that's a little stereotypical. Republicans practically named everything they've done this cycle the "Freedom and Love Puppies Act" and all the legislation is really unpopular anyways.
  • 2

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2685
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Windy » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:26 am

They're not motivated by votes, they're motivated from social pressure in high society. Voters don't make you rich and influential, making connections with other rich and influential people makes you rich and influential. The question isn't why low income voters would act against their own best interests, it's why politicians and the corporate elite would ever act against their own best interests.

corporations have a profoundly small impact on elections (for reference, see the Bernie Sanders and Trump campaigns


Trump is rich enough to be a corporation and Sanders was bought, like most politicians tend to be.

The corporate elite controls the media, sure, but with the way the media works, they have a vested profit interest in serving an ideologically diverse content to reach as many viewers as possible. There are plenty of publications and even stations that advance socialism, plenty that advance economic libertarianism, nationalism, ethnic nationalism, globalism, you name it. Again, the problem is less with the media and more with consumer habits.


They're only allowed to exist because they aren't a threat. If any form of media ever becomes a threat to them, the corporate elite will stamp them out. They're currently trying to figure out the best way to control social media.

There isn't really a single reliable media outlet that exists, but you can get a glimpse of the truth if you can piece together the story from multiple outlets.

And judging from the Democratic Party's platform (which some people were mocking, but party platforms have always been simple suggestions for future presidential candidates), they do actually understand that there's a problem that needs fixing, and they've incorporated a lot of Sanders-esque appeal into it. Which you may see as a good thing or bad thing, depending on your political stripe, but at least they're listening. As for Trump, well, for all his incongruity he has to keep going out there and promising that everything he does is for the poor/working/middle class. Which is utter bullshit, but again, reality will eventually set in. Hopefully we won't need another recession to drive it home.


They literally rigged their own primary against Bernie and you still think they'll listen to the voters? Most politicians are rich, what makes you think a group of wealthy socialites have any actual interest in socialism?
This is exactly why we deserve our corporate overlords. We value words and empty promises more than anything else.

If it sounds like I'm saying we need to hit just above rock bottom (rock bottom being another civil war, a dictatorship, or a police state), then yeah, that's what I suspect it will take. But luckily (strange as it is to say) I think we're headed there, so hopefully we'll have this all figured out over the next decade. If Trump and everything the Republicans were doing was popular, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But Trump's the most consistently unpopular president in modern times and will almost certainly continue to be so. An entire generation despises the party that keeps selling us to these corporations and has put the other party on warning. So as long as we're a democracy and this kind of selling out remains unpopular, I don't think all is lost.


We are never going to go anywhere near a civil war, a dictatorship, or a police state. The key is to keep most of the population content enough to avoid a revolt, which is pretty easy to do since the vast majority of humans are short-sighted control freaks and love throwing away other people's rights and freedoms in a fit of self-righteous fury. Europe hates freedom, started two world wars, has a strong roots in both fascism and communism, and there isn't an ocean between them and Islamic countries so it might happen there though.

Also millennials are the generation known for simultaneously worshipping corporations while endorsing communism so we're all doomed.
  • 1

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Cobra-D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:19 pm

Hey you guys remember Joe Arpaio right? You know the totally innocent sheriff trump pardoned cause he was like totally innocent you guys. Welp he's running for senate.

Totally innocent btw.

Edit: dammit I meant to post this in the 2018 midterms thread, can someone move this? Stupid 2020 thread getting in the way.
  • 7

The truth is like poetry, everyone fucking hates poetry.
User avatar
Cobra-D
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:46 pm
Show rep
Title: The Witty Flirt

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby cmsellers » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:41 am

Today I saw a "Beto for Senate" sign.

Assuming he's running against Cruz in the general, I'm voting for him.

But I don't like the fact that he's yet another candidate running based on his first name. Such candidates tend to have cults of personality around them, as the last election (Hillary, Bernie, Donald) demonstrated, and I'm worried the signs mean he's trying to do the same.

Meanwhile, Texas apparently has the earliest primaries of any state, in March, and I'm definitely voting in the Republican primary. The chance to say "stop Zodiac killing our country, Ted!" twice is just too hard to pass up, even knowing the Son of Oswald has no chance of losing the primary to any of the motley assortment of unknowns running against him.

My current preferred candidates is a Houston-based oil executive who talks about "Bannon's barbarians." The other challengers are a producer for televangelists, a self-described "huge Trump supporter," and three other people I can't really find any information about.
  • 2

User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8299
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: US Midterms 2018: Can Team Blue take the Senate?

Postby Crimson847 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:31 am

cmsellers wrote:But I don't like the fact that he's yet another candidate running based on his first name. Such candidates tend to have cults of personality around them, as the last election (Hillary, Bernie, Donald) demonstrated, and I'm worried the signs mean he's trying to do the same.


Wait, Hillary and Jeb! (another first-name candidate from 2016) had cults of personality? I figured they were using their first names to distinguish themselves from the prior Clinton and Bushes to hold the office; neither candidate was exactly hypnotizing crowds with their irresistible charisma and spellbinding public speaking skills.

Also, I'm aware of r/TheDonald, but other than that who generally refers to Trump by his first name? Most of the Trumpers I've seen call him "Trump" or "President Trump", or possibly "President and Commander in Chief of the United States, Donald John Trump" (yes, really). The folks who call him things like "Donnie" tend to be opponents using such pet names as condescending diminutives rather than terms of endearment.


As for Beto, it seems plausible that "O'Rourke" was too common and not distinguishing enough, but idk.
  • 10

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests