Winning The House Is Not A Consolation Prize. It's The Prize

[candycorn]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

True the House is all that mattered. Other stuff would have been nice, but the future of the country rode on some part of the government being taken from the Trump cabal, and we got it.

Interesting...so if Donald Trump takes a page out of the Barack Obama handbook and decides that he'll do end runs around the Democratically controlled House (just like Barry did after the 2010 mid-terms) are you liberals going to OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

As long as you're okay with the obstructionism. Are you going to be OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

 

[Dale Smith]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

hoooooray!

 

[candycorn]

I heard today that during the Clinton years, he lost the House by 60 seats, and Obama by nearly 70?

And Trump only lost it by what, 25, 30?

Maybe I have those numbers wrong, but I think that liberal propaganda is really minimizing the position that the lack of coherent Democratic vision that is killing the DNC. . .

Just an observation. . .

Perhaps. What the Dems don’t realize is this though….

When there was a conflict between the Congress and the President, the President usually came out smelling like a rose after it was over. I wonder how it will go between Trump and the Dem controlled House. I’m completely unsure who carries public opinion if there is a stalemate.

True. If the Dems can come up with something other than identity politics and how the white male patriarchy is bad, they might have a chance.

But the politics of hate don't seem to work well for Trump, so I doubt they will work well for the DNC.

Only a positive message of hope ever really resonates with the independents. It worked well for Obama, and that is the core of MAGA. This is what will draw them like honey. . . or jobs, growth, and a positive economy.

These parties need a plan and a way to implement it.

Platform? Yes
Plan? It would be nice but not necessary. I think the only way you’d signal to the other side that you are serious about bi partisanship on day 1 is to put a moderate from the other party on your ticket as VP and give her or him a real role in policy implementation. More on this later.

I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.

Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.

Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.

There are two major things they can do to make it work.

Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.

Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.

----------------

Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.

Yeah, it does sound like a pipe dream. Mostly b/c the establishment politicians could never appear to be destroying the divide, it is what keeps the system working for them.

I love Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's work.

Have you read their original book? It's terrific. Siting on my book shelf. It's why I am positive Roe v. Wade will NEVER be over turned. Most on the left forget that it was a conservative leaning court that ruled for it, and those pragmatic bastards know why crime fell. They would never overturn it.

Their follow up work and continuing work tended to get more and more partisan, and less and less objective, so I started to pay less attention. Still, it sounds interesting.

I do wish I had the time like I used to, that really is something I should look into, but I am afraid that the very premise, "Hidden Duopoly" should be the clue. Much like my previous reply, hinting at the historian and professor, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, none other than Carroll Quigley, the archivist of the CFR, all of these folks are already working together, the system is already working just they way they want it to. The folks in charge don't WANT you to know what is really going on, wake up.



Folks have now set up a whole web site dedicated to his work, Tragedy and Hope. The system is set up to create conflict and discord, not cooperation, or at least that illusion of it.
Freedom Begins Between Your Ears

They should do a little more research and retitle, try "Hidden MONopoly."

They, and the economic elites cannot afford to have cooperation, they are actually trying to think of more and more ways to purposely create silly reasons for conflict, you haven't noticed?

With each passing year we get more and more stupid and inane "scandals" in the press, and more investigations of politicians of one type or another. Was Hillary really trying to hide nefarious activity? Yeah, probably not. Was Trump, actually colluding with Russians? Fat chance. But all these elites know this, that isn't the point. The point is, they don't want the public paying attention to nearly two decades of war, or that they are sub-contracting out death and destruction and uniting against undeclared imperialism for the benefit of only a handful of multi-billionaires. Anything to keep us distracted and controlled.

I listened to the original Freakonomics book in 2006 I think.

As for destroying the divide...there will be plenty of partisanship once the 4 or 8 years are done (if the split ticket were to win which would be hard to do. If you're Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whomever the next gal or guy is...what do you care about the parties and their skirmishes? You are the President and you have the last job you'll ever have. And if you're the sitting President...do you really think the party will go shopping for another candidate. No way.

 

[SweetSue92]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

The best thing for Republicans would have been for us to win the House and Senate, of course. But listen, Dems narrowly winning the House is not a bad second-place, not by a long shot. Especially not considering that the Dems won by placing moderates all throughout the fruited plain.

Because now what are you going to do?

Are those moderates going to go right along with Nancy's prog plans after they promised not even to vote for her as Speaker? They will lose. They will lose in their districts in just two years.

Or, will they buck the Progressives? The Left will come unglued.

Again, I say. Not a bad second-best prize for us. Will be fun to watch.

 

[MisterBeale]

Perhaps. What the Dems don’t realize is this though….

When there was a conflict between the Congress and the President, the President usually came out smelling like a rose after it was over. I wonder how it will go between Trump and the Dem controlled House. I’m completely unsure who carries public opinion if there is a stalemate.

True. If the Dems can come up with something other than identity politics and how the white male patriarchy is bad, they might have a chance.

But the politics of hate don't seem to work well for Trump, so I doubt they will work well for the DNC.

Only a positive message of hope ever really resonates with the independents. It worked well for Obama, and that is the core of MAGA. This is what will draw them like honey. . . or jobs, growth, and a positive economy.

These parties need a plan and a way to implement it.

Platform? Yes
Plan? It would be nice but not necessary. I think the only way you’d signal to the other side that you are serious about bi partisanship on day 1 is to put a moderate from the other party on your ticket as VP and give her or him a real role in policy implementation. More on this later.

I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.

Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.

Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.

There are two major things they can do to make it work.

Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.

Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.

----------------

Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.

Yeah, it does sound like a pipe dream. Mostly b/c the establishment politicians could never appear to be destroying the divide, it is what keeps the system working for them.

I love Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's work.

Have you read their original book? It's terrific. Siting on my book shelf. It's why I am positive Roe v. Wade will NEVER be over turned. Most on the left forget that it was a conservative leaning court that ruled for it, and those pragmatic bastards know why crime fell. They would never overturn it.

Their follow up work and continuing work tended to get more and more partisan, and less and less objective, so I started to pay less attention. Still, it sounds interesting.

I do wish I had the time like I used to, that really is something I should look into, but I am afraid that the very premise, "Hidden Duopoly" should be the clue. Much like my previous reply, hinting at the historian and professor, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, none other than Carroll Quigley, the archivist of the CFR, all of these folks are already working together, the system is already working just they way they want it to. The folks in charge don't WANT you to know what is really going on, wake up.



Folks have now set up a whole web site dedicated to his work, Tragedy and Hope. The system is set up to create conflict and discord, not cooperation, or at least that illusion of it.
Freedom Begins Between Your Ears

They should do a little more research and retitle, try "Hidden MONopoly."

They, and the economic elites cannot afford to have cooperation, they are actually trying to think of more and more ways to purposely create silly reasons for conflict, you haven't noticed?

With each passing year we get more and more stupid and inane "scandals" in the press, and more investigations of politicians of one type or another. Was Hillary really trying to hide nefarious activity? Yeah, probably not. Was Trump, actually colluding with Russians? Fat chance. But all these elites know this, that isn't the point. The point is, they don't want the public paying attention to nearly two decades of war, or that they are sub-contracting out death and destruction and uniting against undeclared imperialism for the benefit of only a handful of multi-billionaires. Anything to keep us distracted and controlled.

I listened to the original Freakonomics book in 2006 I think.

As for destroying the divide...there will be plenty of partisanship once the 4 or 8 years are done (if the split ticket were to win which would be hard to do. If you're Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whomever the next gal or guy is...what do you care about the parties and their skirmishes? You are the President and you have the last job you'll ever have. And if you're the sitting President...do you really think the party will go shopping for another candidate. No way.

I'm saying, it doesn't work that way.

It will never happen, b/c it doesn't work that way. No major party will ever allow it. They system isn't constructed that way. The elites need to present the plebes with an illusion of a competition, a grudge match.

 

[candycorn]

True. If the Dems can come up with something other than identity politics and how the white male patriarchy is bad, they might have a chance.

But the politics of hate don't seem to work well for Trump, so I doubt they will work well for the DNC.

Only a positive message of hope ever really resonates with the independents. It worked well for Obama, and that is the core of MAGA. This is what will draw them like honey. . . or jobs, growth, and a positive economy.

These parties need a plan and a way to implement it.

Platform? Yes
Plan? It would be nice but not necessary. I think the only way you’d signal to the other side that you are serious about bi partisanship on day 1 is to put a moderate from the other party on your ticket as VP and give her or him a real role in policy implementation. More on this later.

I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.

Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.

Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.

There are two major things they can do to make it work.

Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.

Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.

----------------

Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.

Yeah, it does sound like a pipe dream. Mostly b/c the establishment politicians could never appear to be destroying the divide, it is what keeps the system working for them.

I love Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's work.

Have you read their original book? It's terrific. Siting on my book shelf. It's why I am positive Roe v. Wade will NEVER be over turned. Most on the left forget that it was a conservative leaning court that ruled for it, and those pragmatic bastards know why crime fell. They would never overturn it.

Their follow up work and continuing work tended to get more and more partisan, and less and less objective, so I started to pay less attention. Still, it sounds interesting.

I do wish I had the time like I used to, that really is something I should look into, but I am afraid that the very premise, "Hidden Duopoly" should be the clue. Much like my previous reply, hinting at the historian and professor, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, none other than Carroll Quigley, the archivist of the CFR, all of these folks are already working together, the system is already working just they way they want it to. The folks in charge don't WANT you to know what is really going on, wake up.



Folks have now set up a whole web site dedicated to his work, Tragedy and Hope. The system is set up to create conflict and discord, not cooperation, or at least that illusion of it.
Freedom Begins Between Your Ears

They should do a little more research and retitle, try "Hidden MONopoly."

They, and the economic elites cannot afford to have cooperation, they are actually trying to think of more and more ways to purposely create silly reasons for conflict, you haven't noticed?

With each passing year we get more and more stupid and inane "scandals" in the press, and more investigations of politicians of one type or another. Was Hillary really trying to hide nefarious activity? Yeah, probably not. Was Trump, actually colluding with Russians? Fat chance. But all these elites know this, that isn't the point. The point is, they don't want the public paying attention to nearly two decades of war, or that they are sub-contracting out death and destruction and uniting against undeclared imperialism for the benefit of only a handful of multi-billionaires. Anything to keep us distracted and controlled.

I listened to the original Freakonomics book in 2006 I think.

As for destroying the divide...there will be plenty of partisanship once the 4 or 8 years are done (if the split ticket were to win which would be hard to do. If you're Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whomever the next gal or guy is...what do you care about the parties and their skirmishes? You are the President and you have the last job you'll ever have. And if you're the sitting President...do you really think the party will go shopping for another candidate. No way.

I'm saying, it doesn't work that way.

It will never happen, b/c it doesn't work that way. No major party will ever allow it. They system isn't constructed that way. The elites need to present the plebes with an illusion of a competition, a grudge match.

I agree it will likely never happen.

I don't see how the party could stop it though if you had a nominee who was truly determined to leave an indelible mark in history and really look to change the tone in Washington . Once you have the nomination of your party, I Imagine they could strip you of it but that would be handing the other side the election. No rule that I am aware of forces you to announce your running mate prior to the floor vote. Most often, the conventions are just coronations for candidates who won their primary.

The system is constructed exactly as follows. You have primaries and caucuses where you win delegates allotted by either a percentage or a take-all proposition. At the end of the primary season, you have a convention followed by a general election. That is the system.

As for the elites...ok I guess. I would be more comfortable if there was some sort of actual rule on the books you'd refer to rather than just creating obstacles that are not there.

 

[MisterBeale]

Platform? Yes
Plan? It would be nice but not necessary. I think the only way you’d signal to the other side that you are serious about bi partisanship on day 1 is to put a moderate from the other party on your ticket as VP and give her or him a real role in policy implementation. More on this later.

I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.

Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.

Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.

There are two major things they can do to make it work.

Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.

Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.

----------------

Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.

Yeah, it does sound like a pipe dream. Mostly b/c the establishment politicians could never appear to be destroying the divide, it is what keeps the system working for them.

I love Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's work.

Have you read their original book? It's terrific. Siting on my book shelf. It's why I am positive Roe v. Wade will NEVER be over turned. Most on the left forget that it was a conservative leaning court that ruled for it, and those pragmatic bastards know why crime fell. They would never overturn it.

Their follow up work and continuing work tended to get more and more partisan, and less and less objective, so I started to pay less attention. Still, it sounds interesting.

I do wish I had the time like I used to, that really is something I should look into, but I am afraid that the very premise, "Hidden Duopoly" should be the clue. Much like my previous reply, hinting at the historian and professor, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, none other than Carroll Quigley, the archivist of the CFR, all of these folks are already working together, the system is already working just they way they want it to. The folks in charge don't WANT you to know what is really going on, wake up.



Folks have now set up a whole web site dedicated to his work, Tragedy and Hope. The system is set up to create conflict and discord, not cooperation, or at least that illusion of it.
Freedom Begins Between Your Ears

They should do a little more research and retitle, try "Hidden MONopoly."

They, and the economic elites cannot afford to have cooperation, they are actually trying to think of more and more ways to purposely create silly reasons for conflict, you haven't noticed?

With each passing year we get more and more stupid and inane "scandals" in the press, and more investigations of politicians of one type or another. Was Hillary really trying to hide nefarious activity? Yeah, probably not. Was Trump, actually colluding with Russians? Fat chance. But all these elites know this, that isn't the point. The point is, they don't want the public paying attention to nearly two decades of war, or that they are sub-contracting out death and destruction and uniting against undeclared imperialism for the benefit of only a handful of multi-billionaires. Anything to keep us distracted and controlled.

I listened to the original Freakonomics book in 2006 I think.

As for destroying the divide...there will be plenty of partisanship once the 4 or 8 years are done (if the split ticket were to win which would be hard to do. If you're Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whomever the next gal or guy is...what do you care about the parties and their skirmishes? You are the President and you have the last job you'll ever have. And if you're the sitting President...do you really think the party will go shopping for another candidate. No way.

I'm saying, it doesn't work that way.

It will never happen, b/c it doesn't work that way. No major party will ever allow it. They system isn't constructed that way. The elites need to present the plebes with an illusion of a competition, a grudge match.

I agree it will likely never happen.

I don't see how the party could stop it though if you had a nominee who was truly determined to leave an indelible mark in history and really look to change the tone in Washington . Once you have the nomination of your party, I Imagine they could strip you of it but that would be handing the other side the election. No rule that I am aware of forces you to announce your running mate prior to the floor vote. Most often, the conventions are just coronations for candidates who won their primary.

The system is constructed exactly as follows. You have primaries and caucuses where you win delegates allotted by either a percentage or a take-all proposition. At the end of the primary season, you have a convention followed by a general election. That is the system.

As for the elites...ok I guess. I would be more comfortable if there was some sort of actual rule on the books you'd refer to rather than just creating obstacles that are not there.

You want a rule on the books I can refer to?

How about the Chatham House Rule?

All of the politicians you have been talking about, Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, etc. About 90% of D.C. all go to CFR meetings and talk with each other, it doesn't matter the party, it is all off the record.

They meet with members of the CORPORATE press, and the government press, like NPR and PBS, not the alternative press or underground press or independent journalists, just the Anglo-American globalized establishment, and they all meet with the top leaders of all the fortune five hundred companies, Wall Street, silicon valley, the intel. agencies, every past secretary of state and president, and they use the Chatham House Rule. It is a secret fascist government.

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."
Chatham House Rule

It's pretty well known that the more private meeting at the CFR all take place using this rule.

Though, I have noticed since more people have become aware of this think tank they have more and more conferences on the record.

 

[candycorn]

I listened to a podcast the other day called "The Hidden Duopoly". It was done by Freakonomics and it's founder Stephen J. Dubner. Google Freakonomics Radio if you want to hear it.

Part of me is like "duh"...it's not that hidden. But one of the conclusions they came up with was that the two major parties do not even try for the middle; they find easier vote-mining on the far ends of the spectrum. The middle--soft Dems and soft Repubs and true independents do not matter. If that is true, there is an opportunity for a true change agent.

Okay. Lets go back in time (harp music playing in the back) to June 7, 2008. It is the date Obama won the Democratic Nomination. McCain won on 9/4/2008. But unlike Obama, McCain had the thing sewn up long before that in March. Dubner contends that the parties don't care about them because there is no viable alternative..."Where are they going to go?" is how they put it. Now, lets say for the sake of argument that the running mate Joe Biden isn't picked at the time the nomination is sealed and McCain doesn't nominate Palin at the convention or toys with Lieberman prior to the convention. Once the nominations are in, they really cannot be changed so there is theoretically time between the nomination and election when someone who is a change agent can upset the system and nominate a prominent equal partner as running mate. It will take planning of course and a clear division of labor between the two people on the ticket on what they are going to try to accomplish.

There are two major things they can do to make it work.

Divide up appointments and national policy. Let the VP submit the names of Federal/SCOTUS judges and they and the top of the ticket hash out who will be picked for which judgships ahead of time. This is a big thing you can give to the other side in return for an easier go of it and the VP (who will be the presumptive nominee of their party when they are no longer are or going to be VPOTUS and will be in the position to cash in favors) helps you push through an agreeable agenda. Lets say minimum wage for example. Few conservatives continue to push the notion that a rise in the minimum wage is not necessary. Fewer still hold out the long debunked notion that it kills the economy. This is something that could be agreed upon if politics were not at play.

Divide by international/national priorities. And during times of international dischord (like we had in 08), let the VPOTUS essentially take the lead in military operations in return for the help on the domestic agenda.

----------------

Pipe dream? Maybe. But I think it will take a major shift at the top of the ticket before any serious bipartisanship will be possible.

Yeah, it does sound like a pipe dream. Mostly b/c the establishment politicians could never appear to be destroying the divide, it is what keeps the system working for them.

I love Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt's work.

Have you read their original book? It's terrific. Siting on my book shelf. It's why I am positive Roe v. Wade will NEVER be over turned. Most on the left forget that it was a conservative leaning court that ruled for it, and those pragmatic bastards know why crime fell. They would never overturn it.

Their follow up work and continuing work tended to get more and more partisan, and less and less objective, so I started to pay less attention. Still, it sounds interesting.

I do wish I had the time like I used to, that really is something I should look into, but I am afraid that the very premise, "Hidden Duopoly" should be the clue. Much like my previous reply, hinting at the historian and professor, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, none other than Carroll Quigley, the archivist of the CFR, all of these folks are already working together, the system is already working just they way they want it to. The folks in charge don't WANT you to know what is really going on, wake up.



Folks have now set up a whole web site dedicated to his work, Tragedy and Hope. The system is set up to create conflict and discord, not cooperation, or at least that illusion of it.
Freedom Begins Between Your Ears

They should do a little more research and retitle, try "Hidden MONopoly."

They, and the economic elites cannot afford to have cooperation, they are actually trying to think of more and more ways to purposely create silly reasons for conflict, you haven't noticed?

With each passing year we get more and more stupid and inane "scandals" in the press, and more investigations of politicians of one type or another. Was Hillary really trying to hide nefarious activity? Yeah, probably not. Was Trump, actually colluding with Russians? Fat chance. But all these elites know this, that isn't the point. The point is, they don't want the public paying attention to nearly two decades of war, or that they are sub-contracting out death and destruction and uniting against undeclared imperialism for the benefit of only a handful of multi-billionaires. Anything to keep us distracted and controlled.

I listened to the original Freakonomics book in 2006 I think.

As for destroying the divide...there will be plenty of partisanship once the 4 or 8 years are done (if the split ticket were to win which would be hard to do. If you're Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whomever the next gal or guy is...what do you care about the parties and their skirmishes? You are the President and you have the last job you'll ever have. And if you're the sitting President...do you really think the party will go shopping for another candidate. No way.

I'm saying, it doesn't work that way.

It will never happen, b/c it doesn't work that way. No major party will ever allow it. They system isn't constructed that way. The elites need to present the plebes with an illusion of a competition, a grudge match.

I agree it will likely never happen.

I don't see how the party could stop it though if you had a nominee who was truly determined to leave an indelible mark in history and really look to change the tone in Washington . Once you have the nomination of your party, I Imagine they could strip you of it but that would be handing the other side the election. No rule that I am aware of forces you to announce your running mate prior to the floor vote. Most often, the conventions are just coronations for candidates who won their primary.

The system is constructed exactly as follows. You have primaries and caucuses where you win delegates allotted by either a percentage or a take-all proposition. At the end of the primary season, you have a convention followed by a general election. That is the system.

As for the elites...ok I guess. I would be more comfortable if there was some sort of actual rule on the books you'd refer to rather than just creating obstacles that are not there.

You want a rule on the books I can refer to?

How about the Chatham House Rule?

All of the politicians you have been talking about, Obama, McCain, Bush, Clintin, etc. About 90% of D.C. all go to CFR meetings and talk with each other, it doesn't matter the party, it is all off the record.

They meet with members of the CORPORATE press, and the government press, like NPR and PBS, not the alternative press or underground press or independent journalists, just the Anglo-American globalized establishment, and they all meet with the top leaders of all the fortune five hundred companies, Wall Street, silicon valley, the intel. agencies, every past secretary of state and president, and they use the Chatham House Rule. It is a secret fascist government.

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."
Chatham House Rule

It's pretty well known that the more private meeting at the CFR all take place using this rule.

Though, I have noticed since more people have become aware of this think tank they have more and more conferences on the record.

OK

 

[MisterBeale]

I mean, everyone knows what Hoover knew, and the dirt he had on EVERYONE, and they knew his dark secrets, yes?

Now, if he said this?

The mind boggles. When you discover the truth, you too will become a political atheist.

 

[sparky]

The mind boggles. When you discover the truth, you too will become a political atheist.

didn't know the term existed & is rather revealing.....~S~

 

[Oldstyle]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

True the House is all that mattered. Other stuff would have been nice, but the future of the country rode on some part of the government being taken from the Trump cabal, and we got it.

Interesting...so if Donald Trump takes a page out of the Barack Obama handbook and decides that he'll do end runs around the Democratically controlled House (just like Barry did after the 2010 mid-terms) are you liberals going to OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

Sure. Nothing he passes will be meaningful. His EO's can be reversed as easily as they were signed.

You think it will be "easy" to reverse Executive Orders that worked? Doing so simply proves that you're a partisan hack who is more interested in a political win than you are in a win for the American people. Good luck doing that and staying in office, Black Flag!

 

[Oldstyle]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

True the House is all that mattered. Other stuff would have been nice, but the future of the country rode on some part of the government being taken from the Trump cabal, and we got it.

Interesting...so if Donald Trump takes a page out of the Barack Obama handbook and decides that he'll do end runs around the Democratically controlled House (just like Barry did after the 2010 mid-terms) are you liberals going to OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

As long as you're okay with the obstructionism. Are you going to be OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

So was Barack Obama's use of Executive Orders "obstructionism" as well, Candy?

 

[candycorn]

I mean, everyone knows what Hoover knew, and the dirt he had on EVERYONE, and they knew his dark secrets, yes?

Now, if he said this?

The mind boggles. When you discover the truth, you too will become a political atheist.

It sounds like you have a belief in some Godlike figure or system that allegedly controls outcomes and behavior.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean, everyone knows what Hoover knew, and the dirt he had on EVERYONE, and they knew his dark secrets, yes?

Now, if he said this?

The mind boggles. When you discover the truth, you too will become a political atheist.

It sounds like you have a belief in some Godlike figure or system that allegedly controls outcomes and behavior.

You seem to be having a problem answering my question, Candy! Why would the use of EO's by Donald Trump be any different than the use of them by Barack Obama?

 

[candycorn]

I mean, everyone knows what Hoover knew, and the dirt he had on EVERYONE, and they knew his dark secrets, yes?

Now, if he said this?

The mind boggles. When you discover the truth, you too will become a political atheist.

It sounds like you have a belief in some Godlike figure or system that allegedly controls outcomes and behavior.

You seem to be having a problem answering my question, Candy! Why would the use of EO's by Donald Trump be any different than the use of them by Barack Obama?

I didn’t say they would be.

 

[rightwinger]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

True the House is all that mattered. Other stuff would have been nice, but the future of the country rode on some part of the government being taken from the Trump cabal, and we got it.

Interesting...so if Donald Trump takes a page out of the Barack Obama handbook and decides that he'll do end runs around the Democratically controlled House (just like Barry did after the 2010 mid-terms) are you liberals going to OK with that? I'm just asking...LOL

Sure. Nothing he passes will be meaningful. His EO's can be reversed as easily as they were signed.

You think it will be "easy" to reverse Executive Orders that worked? Doing so simply proves that you're a partisan hack who is more interested in a political win than you are in a win for the American people. Good luck doing that and staying in office, Black Flag!

All memory of Donald J Trump will be quickly erased

Rejoin Paris Climate accord
Rejoin Iran nuclear deal
Revoke the tax cut to billionaires
Fully fund Obamacare
Tear down Trumps wall

 

[NightFox]

I heard today that during the Clinton years, he lost the House by 60 seats, and Obama by nearly 70?

And Trump only lost it by what, 25, 30?

Maybe I have those numbers wrong, but I think that liberal propaganda is really minimizing the position that the lack of coherent Democratic vision that is killing the DNC. . .

Just an observation. . .

Perhaps. What the Dems don’t realize is this though….

When there was a conflict between the Congress and the President, the President usually came out smelling like a rose after it was over. I wonder how it will go between Trump and the Dem controlled House. I’m completely unsure who carries public opinion if there is a stalemate.

IMHO It's probably going to depend on how the House Democrats behave, if they focus on a coherent legislative agenda instead of nothing but "investigations" and obstruction they'll probably do fine in the court of public opinion. If they spend all their time and effort going after President Twitter they're likely to lose the support of the public.

They have a few items of common ground they can focus on, including infrastructure, reducing prescription drug prices, combatting the opioid problem, making tax cuts permanent for the middle class and reforming immigration. If they stick with those and show the public they aren't a bunch of bitter children bent on revenge it should turn out well for them. If on the other hand they sink down to Donny's level and do nothing but foam at the mouth and fling mud, Donny will probably win that fight, after all it's his turf.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And it wasn’t just Kobach and Walker, Kansas and Wisconsin have been the go-to examples for Republicans, the test beds of their efforts to destroy labor, trash environmental rules, reward the wealthy, and surrender government services in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Both of those efforts are now in abject retreat.

If America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, Kansas and Wisconsin have demonstrated that all the conservative mix produces is an explosion.

Boom.

In fact, Republicans blew up Kansas so well that the blowback from that effort is likely to still be echoing for several elections to come.

Winning the House is not a consolation prize. It's the prize.

Yes. Dems. Just focus on the house and leave the POTUS and Senate to the GOP. Do that for another 20 years, please.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I heard today that during the Clinton years, he lost the House by 60 seats, and Obama by nearly 70?

And Trump only lost it by what, 25, 30?

Maybe I have those numbers wrong, but I think that liberal propaganda is really minimizing the position that the lack of coherent Democratic vision that is killing the DNC. . .

Just an observation. . .

Perhaps. What the Dems don’t realize is this though….

When there was a conflict between the Congress and the President, the President usually came out smelling like a rose after it was over. I wonder how it will go between Trump and the Dem controlled House. I’m completely unsure who carries public opinion if there is a stalemate.

IMHO It's probably going to depend on how the House Democrats behave, if they focus on a coherent legislative agenda instead of nothing but "investigations" and obstruction they'll probably do fine in the court of public opinion. If they spend all their time and effort going after President Twitter they're likely to lose the support of the public.

They have a few items of common ground they can focus on, including infrastructure, reducing prescription drug prices, combatting the opioid problem, making tax cuts permanent for the middle class and reforming immigration. If they stick with those and show the public they aren't a bunch of bitter children bent on revenge it should turn out well for them. If on the other hand they sink down to Donny's level and do nothing but foam at the mouth and fling mud, Donny will probably win that fight, after all it's his turf.

I am not optimistic that the Dems can control themselves. That's like asking Orange Don to not tweet during his morning visit to the can. He just can't help himself.

 

[Oddball]

Neither the Clinton or Obama House was Gerrymandered to the degree where you have to win by ten percent of the vote just to break even

Yeah, and the republicans gerrymandered the fuck out of the states, and that's why they gained Senate seats, right Joy?