Politics Nov. 2022 voting and election news

[stampedehero]

That whiny bitch from Colorado got in. What the fuck!

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think you are ascribing the wrong motivations. From what I understand, most people, even politicians, hate begging for money. They do it because that's what's required to keep their jobs, individually and collectively, because winning campaigns cost money. We have a stupid campaign financing system, but it's not entirely the fault of the current crop of politicians.

Raising campaign cash is a means to an end, not an end in itself, for any relatively honest politician.

barfo

They do it because the DNC and RNC require it. And they require it from that specific list of donors. They refuse to support your policies or place you on committees otherwise. They torpedo your career even if you were able to raise enough to effectively campaign you'll never get anything done so you'll never get a second term.

So immediately all representatives owe favors to all of the special interests.

Yes, the politicians themselves may start out as fine people with fine goals, but the system is set up so they are tied to whatever policy party leadership chooses. So People who actually want to get something done are run out or corrupted.

 

[twobullz]

I don't think they can, can they?

Well they will disband the January 6th commission.

 

[julius]

They do it because the DNC and RNC require it. And they require it from that specific list of donors. They refuse to support your policies or place you on committees otherwise. They torpedo your career even if you were able to raise enough to effectively campaign you'll never get anything done so you'll never get a second term.

So immediately all representatives owe favors to all of the special interests.

Yes, the politicians themselves may start out as fine people with fine goals, but the system is set up so they are tied to whatever policy party leadership chooses. So People who actually want to get something done are run out or corrupted.

Again, which party votes against abortion rights, feeding children, education, womens rights, equality, gay rights, lgbtq rights and cleaning the earth?

 

[theprunetang]

Again, which party votes against abortion rights, feeding children, education, womens rights, equality, gay rights, lgbtq rights and cleaning the earth?

Not to mention voting against investigating a coup attempt.

 

[barfo]

They do it because the DNC and RNC require it. And they require it from that specific list of donors. They refuse to support your policies or place you on committees otherwise. They torpedo your career even if you were able to raise enough to effectively campaign you'll never get anything done so you'll never get a second term.

Voters don't actually require you to accomplish anything in order to give you a second term in office. Voters make their choices on much less solid foundations - name recognition, slurs against opponents, party ID, charisma, ...

DNC and RNC require it because the parties need funding, like any organization, and there's no other options available. It's not that nefarious.

So immediately all representatives owe favors to all of the special interests.

Yes, that's the root problem. Our system requires that reps take money from people and corporations that have an interest in legislation. That's the problem, not the details of the implementation.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Voters don't actually require you to accomplish anything in order to give you a second term in office. Voters make their choices on much less solid foundations - name recognition, slurs against opponents, party ID, charisma, ...

DNC and RNC require it because the parties need funding, like any organization, and there's no other options available. It's not that nefarious.



Yes, that's the root problem. Our system requires that reps take money from people and corporations that have an interest in legislation. That's the problem, not the details of the implementation.

barfo

No, the DNC and RNC could hire people to do that. They could let the candidates raise their own money from their own sources.

What they are doing is absolutely nefarious. It's a power move and it ensures we don't get the best candidates.

 

[crandc]

One of my favorites, Katie Porter, was re- elected. She is in a swing district and Republicans spent a fortune trying to unseat her.

 

[barfo]

No, the DNC and RNC could hire people to do that. They could let the candidates raise their own money from their own sources.

What they are doing is absolutely nefarious. It's a power move and it ensures we don't get the best candidates.

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to ask for some evidence that what you are saying is factual. I haven't been able to find any references at all to what you are suggesting.

Edit: to be more specific, what I'm looking for is evidence that the DNC/RNC forces candidates to fundraise, forces candidates to fundraise for the DNC/RNC (rather than themselves), and insists that they fundraise from specific people.

None of that makes much sense to me. It's definitely true that congresspeeps spend lots of hours fundraising, but I believe it is primarily for the benefit of their own campaigns, and I have serious doubts they are instructed not to fundraise from anyone who isn't on a provided list. Seems more plausible that the lists are intended to be helpful - here's some folks who gave money in the past - rather than prescriptive. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

barfo

 

[crandc]

One thing Republicans in Congress are not interested in investigating. They said Trump taking classified documents home isn't a matter of interest. Not like Hunter Biden's laptop which might have something on it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

One thing Republicans in Congress are not interested in investigating. They said Trump taking classified documents home isn't a matter of interest. Not like Hunter Biden's laptop which might have something on it.

Might have pictures of Hunter doing hookers and blow. Vital national security risks like that...

 

[crandc]

Joy Reid did a segment on how Republicans captured the house.

Florida, Alabama and Louisiana all redrew their congressional maps to eliminate a majority Black, heavily Democratic, district. The DeSantis appointed Florida supreme court and Trump appointed US supreme court all said taking away Black people's representation was just fine.
Ohio also eliminated a similar district. When state supreme court said it was illegal, Republican controlled legislature said tough shit and kept the map.
That's four seats.

Yes, Democrats in upstate New York screwed up badly. Fatal mistake in politics (and in sports) is assume it's won before votes are counted (or final buzzer, last out, etc.)

But it's not that a majority wants to investigate Hunter Biden and cut Social Security and Medicare. They made sure they don't need a majority.

 

[twobullz]

Oregon's 5th district didn't help. Kurt Schrader was to much of a moderate so they voted him out for the extreme candidate, who then lost. If they had run Schrader, he most likely wins.

 

[barfo]

Oregon's 5th district didn't help. Kurt Schrader was to much of a moderate so they voted him out for the extreme candidate, who then lost. If they had run Schrader, he most likely wins.

Offsets the similar effect in WA-03.

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

One of my favorites, Katie Porter, was re- elected. She is in a swing district and Republicans spent a fortune trying to unseat her.

Oh I know her. She puts people on blast and I like it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to ask for some evidence that what you are saying is factual. I haven't been able to find any references at all to what you are suggesting.

Edit: to be more specific, what I'm looking for is evidence that the DNC/RNC forces candidates to fundraise, forces candidates to fundraise for the DNC/RNC (rather than themselves), and insists that they fundraise from specific people.

None of that makes much sense to me. It's definitely true that congresspeeps spend lots of hours fundraising, but I believe it is primarily for the benefit of their own campaigns, and I have serious doubts they are instructed not to fundraise from anyone who isn't on a provided list. Seems more plausible that the lists are intended to be helpful - here's some folks who gave money in the past - rather than prescriptive. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

barfo

Sorry for the delay. Had 8 games this weekend.

I've listened to several interviews from congress etc. Here is a summary of one with the link to an interview:

This past Sunday, April 24th, 2016, 60 Minutes broadcast an exposé unveiling the outrageous phone banking operations of an uncontrollable D.C. political machine. It couldn’t be clearer that Washington is more about making money than it is about effective governing. The American public already has a low opinion of Congress. At last check, they had a 14% approval rating yet 90% of them get re-elected.

During the broadcast, David Jolly, a Republican Congressman from Florida, claims he was told that his responsibility, as a sitting member of Congress, was to raise $18,000 per day. While legislators and staff are prohibited by law from making fundraising calls from their offices, both Republicans and Democrats are free to do so at party owned call centers down the block.
60 Minutes took a hidden camera into the private backrooms of National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) operations. Jolly describes these offices as “sweat shop phone booths that compromise the dignity of the office.”

Again, I've heard several interviews, I feel like skullduggery had one, freakonomics had one, and I feel like there were a few others I can't remember. But this isn't something that is widely reported on, for obvious reasons.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to ask for some evidence that what you are saying is factual. I haven't been able to find any references at all to what you are suggesting.

Edit: to be more specific, what I'm looking for is evidence that the DNC/RNC forces candidates to fundraise, forces candidates to fundraise for the DNC/RNC (rather than themselves), and insists that they fundraise from specific people.

None of that makes much sense to me. It's definitely true that congresspeeps spend lots of hours fundraising, but I believe it is primarily for the benefit of their own campaigns, and I have serious doubts they are instructed not to fundraise from anyone who isn't on a provided list. Seems more plausible that the lists are intended to be helpful - here's some folks who gave money in the past - rather than prescriptive. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

barfo

I don't believe they are instructed not to fundraise from others, but they are definitely given a list that they will fundraise from. And it takes 1/2 to 3/4 of their time just to address that list.

And all the funding they could need is on the list. So why would they spend more time fundraising?

 

[crandc]

Unfortunately supremacist court and Congress itself killed campaign finance reform. Some countries have publicly financed election. Each candidate gets equal amount. So they don't spend all their time fundraising and don't have wealthy buying elections. But court ruled money is speech and limiting dark money is violation of rich people and corporate free speech.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Unfortunately supremacist court and Congress itself killed campaign finance reform. Some countries have publicly financed election. Each candidate gets equal amount. So they don't spend all their time fundraising and don't have wealthy buying elections. But court ruled money is speech and limiting dark money is violation of rich people and corporate free speech.

Yes, of course they would kill reform. Our current congress is built of people who like this system. It works very well for them and their goals.

 

[barfo]

Sorry for the delay. Had 8 games this weekend.

No rush.

I've listened to several interviews from congress etc. Here is a summary of one with the link to an interview:

Again, I've heard several interviews, I feel like skullduggery had one, freakonomics had one, and I feel like there were a few others I can't remember. But this isn't something that is widely reported on, for obvious reasons.

I came across the Jolly interview while I was trying to verify your claims. It doesn't seem to say either that he was forced to, or that he was fundraising for anyone other than himself. Unless I missed something, it's simply reflecting that they have to spend a lot of time fundraising if they expect to be able to get reelected.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Yes, of course they would kill reform. Our current congress is built of people who like this system. It works very well for them and their goals.

That's insufficiently accurate. Republicans like the current system. Republicans can and do block every attempt at reform via the filibuster.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

That's insufficiently accurate. Republicans like the current system. Republicans can and do block every attempt at reform via the filibuster.

barfo

And then threaten the Dems not to remove the filibuster.

 

[Phatguysrule]

That's insufficiently accurate. Republicans like the current system. Republicans can and do block every attempt at reform via the filibuster.

barfo

Yes. The other team is the problem. Dems are just victims with no actual power.

 

[barfo]

Yes. The other team is the problem. Dems are just victims with no actual power.

This isn't an issue you can 'both sides'. Democrats do NOT have the power to unilaterally pass campaign finance reform.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

This isn't an issue you can 'both sides'. Democrats do NOT have the power to unilaterally pass campaign finance reform.

barfo

But, didn't they? They had 3 branches of government and could have eliminated the filibuster.

Was that the only option? Doubtful. However, I'm quite sure that the democrats in power right now are there because they excel in this system. I'm not seeing the motivation for them to change it...

 

[barfo]

They actually did have the power. They had 3 branches of government and could have eliminated the filibuster.

Was that the only option? Doubtful.

No, they could not have eliminated the filibuster. Democrats are not the Borg. Manchin and Sinema weren't interested in getting rid of the filibuster, so there weren't enough votes. There is no way to force those two to vote with the Democrats.

Howev, I'm quite sure that the democrats in power right now are there because they excel in this system. I'm not seeing the motivation for them to changenit...

Because the current system favors their Republican opponents. The current system is a threat to many D representatives. Democrats don't have as many billionaire donors as Republicans. That's the motivation.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

No, they could not have eliminated the filibuster. Democrats are not the Borg. Manchin and Sinema weren't interested in getting rid of the filibuster, so there weren't enough votes. There is no way to force those two to vote with the Democrats.

So Democrats had the power but Democrats chose not to use it.

Because the current system favors their Republican opponents. The current system is a threat to many D representatives. Democrats don't have as many billionaire donors as Republicans. That's the motivation.

barfo

Why do they care? There is plenty of funding even if the current system favors the Republicans

 

[barfo]

So Democrats had the power but Democrats chose not to use it.

Yes, two specific Democrats chose not to use it. Not 'the Democrats'. Not 'the DNC'. Not 'the party'. Two individual people.

Why do they care? There is plenty of funding even if the current system favors the Republicans

Right... no politician worries about raising money. That's why they never spend any time on the phone with donors, right?

barfo

 

[crandc]

That's insufficiently accurate. Republicans like the current system. Republicans can and do block every attempt at reform via the filibuster.

barfo

Actually John McCain supported campaign finance reform. Remember NcCain Feingold campaign finance act? But supreme court stepped in. Citizens United ruled corporations are people, money is speech.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, two specific Democrats chose not to use it. Not 'the Democrats'. Not 'the DNC'. Not 'the party'. Two individual people.

And what party do those people represent? Republicans are able to get their party to screw us. Dems can't even get us some lube.

Because they don't have enough incentive.

Right... no politician worries about raising money. That's why they never spend any time on the phone with donors, right?

barfo

That's how there is plenty of funding. By spending all of their time on the phone in the current system we are discussing. If Republicans are stronger Dems get more money based on fear.

Do you really feel like Democrats are having trouble raising money?