POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[romad1]

I think I would be annoyed to have to work for any of these people.   I once interned for a GOP rep and the guy was getting free labor from me but insisted I use his title when talking to him.   While that seemed pretty innocuous to me at the time, it really bothered me when i saw how he treated others.  

Now Slotkin seems like she'd be a bit more difficult than others to work for, just a feeling.  Daughter from a wealthy family and all that. 

That said, they are ham sandwich and I'm voting for that over any GOP person until Trumpism and MAGA is no more. 

[pfife]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

voting against appointments from the minority doesn't actually accomplish anything - it's nice symbolism, but does it matter? I'd guess most members make those votes because they are hoping to bank some goodwill capital to get something later that will be worth more than a symbolic no vote that doesn't stop anything. I guess there is a level where more 'symbol' can be good thing but in the end, stuff that doesn't make a difference, doesn't make a difference.

OTOH, if any of those votes could have stopped one of those appointments, then I agree with you.

Banking on goodwill capital with maga is foolish. I prefer senators who arent foolish 

[pfife]

Besides, everyone knows the way to curry favor with MAGA is to create an award to give to trump.   Voting for somoene hes going to throw under the bus within a year.... isnt.

[Motown Bombers]

El-Sayed was just on Fox News, but sure, going on Bill Maher that one time is the issue. 

[pfife]

Does MAGA even care if the nominees get confirmed by the Senate?  Hes got several 'acting' cabinet officials currently and had dozens and dozens of them in Trump1.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

voting against appointments from the minority doesn't actually accomplish anything - it's nice symbolism, but does it matter? I'd guess most members make those votes because they are hoping to bank some goodwill capital to get something later that will be worth more than a symbolic no vote that doesn't stop anything. I guess there is a level where more 'symbol' can be good thing but in the end, stuff that doesn't make a difference, doesn't make a difference.

OTOH, if any of those votes could have stopped one of those appointments, then I agree with you.

I wouldn't want my name or reputation at all associated with what this administration is doing. They're doing bad, immoral, unlawful things daily, especially Noem and her department. That's one major reason to cast a vote against. Getting to have the clear, moral clarity that you opposed this lawlessness and inhumanity at every turn means something imo.

[Motown Bombers]

15 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I wouldn't want my name or reputation at all associated with what this administration is doing. They're doing bad, immoral, unlawful things daily, especially Noem and her department. That's one major reason to cast a vote against. Getting to have the clear, moral clarity that you opposed this lawlessness and inhumanity at every turn means something imo.

Nah, you just want your name and reputation to be associated with a guy who thought the US deserved 9/11 and actively helped campaign against the opposition to this administration. 

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, romad1 said:

I don't anticipate it being close.  Gas prices + war + Trump's general putzery + blasphemy + JD Vance + Mike Johnson = a 1994, 2006 or 2010 wave. 

As long as it's a free and fair election, I agree.

[chasfh]

Lessons for the Democrats?

By Calder McHugh

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during the 2026 Liberal National Convention in Montreal, Canada, on April 11, 2026. | Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images

MONTREAL — What happened last year in Canada is by now a matter of political lore. Harnessing a wave of Canadian nationalism in opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump’s belligerent rhetoric, Prime Minister Mark Carney implored voters to get their “elbows up” and led his Liberal Party to victory after trailing badly in the polls. Then, in January, Carney won international acclaim for delivering the most consequential speech at Davos, arguing that a “rupture in the world order” required a new approach from middle powers like Canada. Yet even as Carney’s global stature grew and his popularity surged, his Liberal Party remained short of a majority government — until last night. By sweeping three special elections, Carney finally has a majority in Parliament. The victory should keep Carney in office until 2029, and it enables him to more easily enact a domestic agenda that includes trade policies designed to reduce Canada’s economic reliance on the United States. But it also offers lessons for center-left parties around the globe as they struggle for relevance amid the rise of the populist far right. The election results come on the heels of a jarring — and perhaps revealing — moment in Canadian politics. Last week, Marilyn Gladu, a former Conservative MP, crossed the floor to join the Liberals, becoming the fifth member in a year to do so, along with three other Conservatives and a New Democrat. Gladu, however, stood out among the group. A social conservative who won her safely Conservative riding in 2025 by over 15 points, when she arrived on stage at the Liberal Party Convention in Montréal on Friday, she was such an unlikely convert that her appearance was met with a mix of modest applause and pointedly folded arms. In the media scrum afterward, as journalists shouted questions about her seemingly contradictory past positions, she insisted that this is what her constituents want. “It’s going to be good for the riding … good for the country … and it’s good for me personally as well,” Gladu said. The last point is the operative one. Success has begotten success for Canada’s Liberals. People like a winner. And Carney has laid the groundwork for this directional change. As POLITICO’s Nick Taylor-Vaisey recently noted, the current version of Canada’s Liberals looks a lot more like that of the early 2000s, when social conservatives were more commonplace within the party. And while much has been made of the backlash to Trump that has advanced Liberal Party fortunes, Carney has also signaled he intends to be a big-tent leader, ideologically and stylistically different from his more polarizing predecessor, Justin Trudeau. A technocratic former central banker more comfortable in board rooms than on the stump, Carney has nevertheless leaned into gladhanding with voters. He has cast himself as a change candidate — and revisited a decade of Liberal policy on climate, taxes and federal public service expansion — without entirely jettisoning Trudeau’s priorities. “If I’m a Conservative … I want to campaign against giving Liberals a fifth term rather than Mark Carney a second,” said Gerald Butts, the chairman of the Eurasia Group and a senior strategic advisor to Carney and Trudeau. “But in order to do that, you have to make the case that he’s the same old, same old. And I think that’s going to be a tough brief.” For now, as political parties of all stripes around the globe become more insular and more insistent on purity tests, Carney’s broadening of the definition of a Canadian Liberal is expanding his coalition at home. And his willingness to forcefully buck the United States has made him a leader in nascent global attempts to build a new Western alliance without Washington as its beating heart. But, as pollster Philippe Fournier said, “When you have a big tent, how much can you stretch the fabric until it snaps?”

[Motown Bombers]

LOL Dems did that in 2024. Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney. Kinzinger and Olivia Troye spoke at the convention. The far left said Dems and Republicans were the same. 

[ewsieg]

3 hours ago, pfife said:

Banking on goodwill capital with maga is foolish. I prefer senators who arent foolish 

I live in a community that easily could have lost Selfridge Air Base if it weren't for goodwill capital that Whitmer got for being the better person and agreeing to try and work with Trump.  Michigan and the rest of the great lakes states got the added benefit of additional funds to help keep invasive carp out of Lake Michigan too.  

In Whitmer's case I don't think she capitulated to Trump either in order to get some benefit for this state.

Additionally you can make the argument that if Trump didn't get to pick the cabinet he wanted, that cabinet may have shielded him from being the trainwreck he is, arguably like they did his first term.  Allowing Trump to pick his own cabinet, which an elected president should be able to do unless he's putting outrageously unqualified folks up for nomination is arguably one of the biggest reasons we're starting to see cracks in MAGA and unprecedented likability numbers in a time of war like we're seeing now.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

LOL Dems did that in 2024. Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney. Kinzinger and Olivia Troye spoke at the convention. The far left said Dems and Republicans were the same. 

the difference is that the stakes were higher for Canada. You know the old saw about 'academic politics are the worst because there is so little at stake" - the same paradigm exists in real politics. Only when the perceived stakes are low do people spend a lot time arguing about symbolic votes and windmill tilts at policies that have no chance of adoption and stabbing their own needed allies in the back.  It's the perception of real danger that finally straightens out people's thinking and ultimately results in an empowered broad based opposition. The US is so fat and happy, the various people who don't like Trump still have not internalized the level of risk enough to be willing to bury their micro-political cultural biases and work together strategically.

Now you would think it's pretty hard to be alive with a brain in the US and not understand the risk of the direction we are going, but the objective evidence tells us it hasn't sunk in everywhere - yet.

[oblong]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

I forgot about Sen O' Rourke and Sen Harrison.  How have they done in the Senate?

 

[Tigermojo]

50 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Lessons for the Democrats?

By Calder McHugh

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during the 2026 Liberal National Convention in Montreal, Canada, on April 11, 2026. | Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images

MONTREAL — What happened last year in Canada is by now a matter of political lore. Harnessing a wave of Canadian nationalism in opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump’s belligerent rhetoric, Prime Minister Mark Carney implored voters to get their “elbows up” and led his Liberal Party to victory after trailing badly in the polls. Then, in January, Carney won international acclaim for delivering the most consequential speech at Davos, arguing that a “rupture in the world order” required a new approach from middle powers like Canada.   Yet even as Carney’s global stature grew and his popularity surged, his Liberal Party remained short of a majority government — until last night.   By sweeping three special elections, Carney finally has a majority in Parliament. The victory should keep Carney in office until 2029, and it enables him to more easily enact a domestic agenda that includes trade policies designed to reduce Canada’s economic reliance on the United States. But it also offers lessons for center-left parties around the globe as they struggle for relevance amid the rise of the populist far right.   The election results come on the heels of a jarring — and perhaps revealing — moment in Canadian politics. Last week, Marilyn Gladu, a former Conservative MP, crossed the floor to join the Liberals, becoming the fifth member in a year to do so, along with three other Conservatives and a New Democrat.   Gladu, however, stood out among the group. A social conservative who won her safely Conservative riding in 2025 by over 15 points, when she arrived on stage at the Liberal Party Convention in Montréal on Friday, she was such an unlikely convert that her appearance was met with a mix of modest applause and pointedly folded arms.   In the media scrum afterward, as journalists shouted questions about her seemingly contradictory past positions, she insisted that this is what her constituents want.   “It’s going to be good for the riding … good for the country … and it’s good for me personally as well,” Gladu said.   The last point is the operative one. Success has begotten success for Canada’s Liberals. People like a winner. And Carney has laid the groundwork for this directional change.   As POLITICO’s Nick Taylor-Vaisey recently noted, the current version of Canada’s Liberals looks a lot more like that of the early 2000s, when social conservatives were more commonplace within the party. And while much has been made of the backlash to Trump that has advanced Liberal Party fortunes, Carney has also signaled he intends to be a big-tent leader, ideologically and stylistically different from his more polarizing predecessor, Justin Trudeau.   A technocratic former central banker more comfortable in board rooms than on the stump, Carney has nevertheless leaned into gladhanding with voters. He has cast himself as a change candidate — and revisited a decade of Liberal policy on climate, taxes and federal public service expansion — without entirely jettisoning Trudeau’s priorities.   “If I’m a Conservative … I want to campaign against giving Liberals a fifth term rather than Mark Carney a second,” said Gerald Butts, the chairman of the Eurasia Group and a senior strategic advisor to Carney and Trudeau. “But in order to do that, you have to make the case that he’s the same old, same old. And I think that’s going to be a tough brief.”   For now, as political parties of all stripes around the globe become more insular and more insistent on purity tests, Carney’s broadening of the definition of a Canadian Liberal is expanding his coalition at home. And his willingness to forcefully buck the United States has made him a leader in nascent global attempts to build a new Western alliance without Washington as its beating heart. But, as pollster Philippe Fournier said, “When you have a big tent, how much can you stretch the fabric until it snaps?”

I'm radical left. I normally vote NDP but I did vote Liberal for Carney because he had a plan to improve Canada. Not concepts of a plan. I didn't vote because he is more right leaning or different from Trudeau. I voted for him because he is smarter than Trump. Carney is stability and Trump is chaos.

The billionaires have learned since COVID that chaos makes them a lot of money. The rest of us need stability. 

Edit - If Democrats want the radical left vote, they need stability. I thought Harris was an excellent candidate but obviously there is a lot of men who did not and I think we all know the reasons. No fault of hers, it's the upbringing and environment those men grew up in. She did not bring stability and she lost. Trump promised stability even though everyone knew he was lying.

Edited 5 hours ago by Tigermojo

[Motown Bombers]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

I forgot about Sen O' Rourke and Sen Harrison.  How have they done in the Senate?

 

Not as well as senator elect Talarico. 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

I live in a community that easily could have lost Selfridge Air Base if it weren't for goodwill capital that Whitmer got for being the better person and agreeing to try and work with Trump.  Michigan and the rest of the great lakes states got the added benefit of additional funds to help keep invasive carp out of Lake Michigan too.  

In Whitmer's case I don't think she capitulated to Trump either in order to get some benefit for this state.

Additionally you can make the argument that if Trump didn't get to pick the cabinet he wanted, that cabinet may have shielded him from being the trainwreck he is, arguably like they did his first term.  Allowing Trump to pick his own cabinet, which an elected president should be able to do unless he's putting outrageously unqualified folks up for nomination is arguably one of the biggest reasons we're starting to see cracks in MAGA and unprecedented likability numbers in a time of war like we're seeing now.

I agree that goodwill capital will work on Trump, Mamdani and dozens of world leaders have done so.   But none have done so by voting tor his nominees in the US Senate.

They arent blocking the cabinet he wants because they dont have the votes and he has a long record of appointing acting cabinet and bypassing confirmation altogether even when his party controls the senate

Edited 4 hours ago by pfife

[Motown Bombers]

It's not about goodwill but doing the Susan Collins approach to bipartisanship. You're bipartisan when your vote has no affect on the outcome. 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tigermojo said:

I'm radical left. I normally vote NDP but I did vote Liberal for Carney because he had a plan to improve Canada. Not concepts of a plan. I didn't vote because he is more right leaning or different from Trudeau. I voted for him because he is smarter than Trump. Carney is stability and Trump is chaos.

The billionaires have learned since COVID that chaos makes them a lot of money. The rest of us need stability. 

Edit - If Democrats want the radical left vote, they need stability. I thought Harris was an excellent candidate but obviously there is a lot of men who did not and I think we all know the reasons. No fault of hers, it's the upbringing and environment those men grew up in. She did not bring stability and she lost. Trump promised stability even though everyone knew he was lying.

Well put, agree with almost all of it. As for Kamala, she might be a brilliant political tactician, but during conversation she got caught flat-footed too often for my liking. I rooted for her to win still, but I can see why people peeled off after a couple of high-profile flubs. The whole Charli XCX Brat thing sure didn't help, either.

[Motown Bombers]

What were these high profile flubs?

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

What were these high profile flubs?

When Kamala went on The View and said that she wouldn't have done anything different from President Joe Biden. She got caught flat-footed and didn't have a answer to it. To many people, it made her look unprepared.

Kamala was criticized when she was asked about the U.S. relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when she gave a lengthy, somewhat circuitous answer that critics labeled "word salad". This was also the interview Trump sued over, and although that's not her fault, it did get hung on her.

When she cracked a beer with Colbert on his show, it was criticized as "forced" and "unpresidential". 

During a rally with Oprah Winfrey, Kamala was asked a direct question about her plan to lower the cost of living. Her response was a two-minute monologue about "what is possible" and "commonality" which was widely ridiculed online for failing to provide a concrete policy answer.

Taken separately, maybe not all of these would draw so much attention, but they start compounding on one another and may have hurt her vote totals.

You may think none of these are flubs, which is your prerogative, but she did get criticized for all these. Not to put too fine a point on it, most would agree that these are the kinds of things a white male candidate can get away with more than a female candidate of color.

And, of course, the Charli XCX Brat thing didn't help, either.

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

What were these high profile flubs?

Her campaign, that was definitely a flub.

[ewsieg]

Chuck, why are you so hung up on Kamala?  None of those reasons are enough to justify a vote for Trump!  Trump is the real issue and you keep on blaming Kamala for everything!

Just joking, I agree with everything you posted.  Just thought it was funny that i'm in this thread praising Whitmer and you're criticizing Harris.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

6 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Nah, you just want your name and reputation to be associated with a guy who thought the US deserved 9/11 and actively helped campaign against the opposition to this administration. 

I don't agree with everything Hasan Piker has said. But spare me the outrage. Where was your outrage when Kamala wanted her name and reputation associated with someone who was a war criminal and should have died in the Hauge in Richard Cheney? I certainly didn't like her accepting Cheney's endorsement and no Democrat should feel comfortable with it. Harris said she was honored to have the endorsement of a person who authorized the use of torture on human beings and committed war crimes.

Building the case for war off lies, going into war for no-bid oil contracts, slaughtering civilians in Iraq, and using chemical weapons in Iraq when the Bush Administration allowed white phosphorus bombs to be dropped on people is all far worse than anything Piker said. So spare me please.

Edited 1 hour ago by Mr.TaterSalad