The Kalwejt Foundation for the Promotion of Atlas Hilarity

[JustinTimeCuber]

Another unintentionally hilarious one:

Manchin is losing in the primary anyways.

I think he'll win the primary but I hope he loses, for things like f**king over his constituents by being one of four Dems to vote for the Stream Protection Rule repeal, approving idiots like Carson and Perry to Trump's cabinet, and voting in favor of JEFF SESSIONS. Yeah, if I had my way, he should resign.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think he'll win the primary but I hope he loses, for things like f**king over his constituents by being one of four Dems to vote for the Stream Protection Rule repeal, approving idiots like Carson and Perry to Trump's cabinet, and voting in favor of JEFF SESSIONS. Yeah, if I had my way, he should resign.

This is what I don't get - you hope he loses, but you understand who will very likely take his place in the Senate then, right? A Republican who would do all those things you just listed and far more.

The JD candidate is definitely someone I'd like in Manchin's seat (as far as I can tell), but she doesn't seem like a realistic winner in WV at all. Is an anti-coal crusader the best option there? Why can't they run candidates for other lower offices in WV first to see if that kind of candidate can actually win? As much as Manchin may piss liberals off, he still votes with Democrats much more than any Republican would.

If groups like JD start torpedoing Democratic Senate seats in conservative-leaning states in 2018, Democrats are going to be in the Senate minority for many years. The current path back to power in that chamber already requires a multi-cycle effort, and has little room for error.

I obviously think Manchin would be the lesser of two evils against a far-right Republican but I think that the right kind of progressive campaign that focuses more on economic issues could win in WV, especially if they are anti-establishment.
</KyleKulinskiHackRant>

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think he'll win the primary but I hope he loses, for things like f**king over his constituents by being one of four Dems to vote for the Stream Protection Rule repeal, approving idiots like Carson and Perry to Trump's cabinet, and voting in favor of JEFF SESSIONS. Yeah, if I had my way, he should resign.

This is what I don't get - you hope he loses, but you understand who will very likely take his place in the Senate then, right? A Republican who would do all those things you just listed and far more.

The JD candidate is definitely someone I'd like in Manchin's seat (as far as I can tell), but she doesn't seem like a realistic winner in WV at all. Is an anti-coal crusader the best option there? Why can't they run candidates for other lower offices in WV first to see if that kind of candidate can actually win? As much as Manchin may piss liberals off, he still votes with Democrats much more than any Republican would.

If groups like JD start torpedoing Democratic Senate seats in conservative-leaning states in 2018, Democrats are going to be in the Senate minority for many years. The current path back to power in that chamber already requires a multi-cycle effort, and has little room for error.

I obviously think Manchin would be the lesser of two evils against a far-right Republican but I think that the right kind of progressive campaign that focuses more on economic issues could win in WV, especially if they are anti-establishment.
</KyleKulinskiHackRant>

I don't think you know that state at all.

You're right, I don't really. But the fact that a room full of Trump voters cheered Bernie's progressive economic agenda could mean something. Not necessarily, but it's worth trying. The approach of running to the right hasn't helped the Dems.
Do you think West Virginians like big business and corporate greed?

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think he'll win the primary but I hope he loses, for things like f**king over his constituents by being one of four Dems to vote for the Stream Protection Rule repeal, approving idiots like Carson and Perry to Trump's cabinet, and voting in favor of JEFF SESSIONS. Yeah, if I had my way, he should resign.

This is what I don't get - you hope he loses, but you understand who will very likely take his place in the Senate then, right? A Republican who would do all those things you just listed and far more.

The JD candidate is definitely someone I'd like in Manchin's seat (as far as I can tell), but she doesn't seem like a realistic winner in WV at all. Is an anti-coal crusader the best option there? Why can't they run candidates for other lower offices in WV first to see if that kind of candidate can actually win? As much as Manchin may piss liberals off, he still votes with Democrats much more than any Republican would.

If groups like JD start torpedoing Democratic Senate seats in conservative-leaning states in 2018, Democrats are going to be in the Senate minority for many years. The current path back to power in that chamber already requires a multi-cycle effort, and has little room for error.

I obviously think Manchin would be the lesser of two evils against a far-right Republican but I think that the right kind of progressive campaign that focuses more on economic issues could win in WV, especially if they are anti-establishment.
</KyleKulinskiHackRant>

I don't think you know that state at all.

You're right, I don't really. But the fact that a room full of Trump voters cheered Bernie's progressive economic agenda could mean something. Not necessarily, but it's worth trying. The approach of running to the right hasn't helped the Dems.
Do you think West Virginians like big business and corporate greed?

Do you think West Virginians see the world in the same way that you do. Because I get the feeling that many of them would roll their eyes at a berniecrat talking about "the one percent". There is probably a subset of the population that supports populists like trump who would be attracted to Sanders and his economic agenda from an anti-establishment point of view. I'd like to see the source of your knowledge of that room full of trump voters. Do you have a link?

Sorry for being Secular Talk sellout
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whxM34M94SE

I think if you put the problem in understandable terms, people would believe you more than some fake-sounding, out-of-touch Republican.

Also the Dem got within a few points in KS-4 with zero help from the national Democratic campaign organizations.

[JustinTimeCuber]

but KS-04 still went for Donnie by something like 25 points, not that far from WV. And again, the national Dems ignored it.

e: Can't find source for exact margin in district but correct me if I'm wrong.

[JustinTimeCuber]

but KS-04 still went for Donnie by something like 25 points, not that far from WV. And again, the national Dems ignored it.

Similar margins =/= similar seats. The KS-04 special election was a low turnout election. Energization is significantly more impactful in those kinds of elections. For one, KS-04 trended about 2-4 points republican from 2012 to 2016. In West Virginia the trend was more like 10-20 points(and Clinton lost it by around 40 points). Margin tells you nothing about the personalities of the voters on either side.

Yes, but it shows that it's possible to overcome what's normally a 27 point loss for Dems and turn it into a 7 point loss.

I'm actually fine with moderates, as long as they aren't massive corporatists and as long as they don't vote to basically allow pollution of water (let's make the whole country like Flint?)

[JustinTimeCuber]

but KS-04 still went for Donnie by something like 25 points, not that far from WV. And again, the national Dems ignored it.

Similar margins =/= similar seats. The KS-04 special election was a low turnout election. Energization is significantly more impactful in those kinds of elections. For one, KS-04 trended about 2-4 points republican from 2012 to 2016. In West Virginia the trend was more like 10-20 points(and Clinton lost it by around 40 points). Margin tells you nothing about the personalities of the voters on either side.

Yes, but it shows that it's possible to overcome what's normally a 27 point loss for Dems and turn it into a 7 point loss.

It proves that margins can get weird in more obscure elections. It would mean something if it at least happened under a midterm electorate, but not under a much smaller electorate during a special election when liberals were highly energized by trump and conservatives weren't.

It's a fair point that the situation was odd but it proves that deep red districts (and states) aren't unwinnable.

Just a question, do you think if Joe Manchin stopped taking cash from big business and didn't vote in favor of pollution (my biggest problems with him right now) he would be more or less electable?

Also a PPP poll from last April had Trump up against Sanders in WV by 21 and against Clinton by 27.
That doesn't say much but it's hard to look at that and say that moderates do BETTER in WV.

[JustinTimeCuber]

but KS-04 still went for Donnie by something like 25 points, not that far from WV. And again, the national Dems ignored it.

Similar margins =/= similar seats. The KS-04 special election was a low turnout election. Energization is significantly more impactful in those kinds of elections. For one, KS-04 trended about 2-4 points republican from 2012 to 2016. In West Virginia the trend was more like 10-20 points(and Clinton lost it by around 40 points). Margin tells you nothing about the personalities of the voters on either side.

Yes, but it shows that it's possible to overcome what's normally a 27 point loss for Dems and turn it into a 7 point loss.

It proves that margins can get weird in more obscure elections. It would mean something if it at least happened under a midterm electorate, but not under a much smaller electorate during a special election when liberals were highly energized by trump and conservatives weren't.

It's a fair point that the situation was odd but it proves that deep red districts (and states) aren't unwinnable.

Just a question, do you think if Joe Manchin stopped taking cash from big business3 and didn't vote in favor of pollution (my biggest problems with him right now) he would be more or less electable?

You can potentially win weird districts in weird situations, but that doesn't mean you can reliably win them in normal situations. On Manchin:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, not taking donations, thus denying yourself access to very important campaigning tactics that your opponent will still have access to, is very damaging to ones electability. The only people who you'd please are already safe democrats, and many in WV would probably see it as a liberal grandstand. It would hurt royally unless a politician was prolific enough to attract a storm of grassroots donations(eg GA-06 special election, sanders presidential run). It doesn't work for senate races in economically depressed small states, especially when none of the enthusiastic donors like you. It is devastating to be known to the electorate only from attack ads(see Matt Heinz vs Martha McSally).
WV would be particularly difficult but it's possible to do a national campaign for several progressive candidates in certain states, small dollar out-of-state donations are way better than big-money out-of-state donations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you know anything about West Virginia?
I doubt that they're in favor of contaminated drinking water for their kids...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton isn't a moderate, especially not in the eyes of the average West Virginian.
but I bet most West Virginians don't think she's left of Sanders.

[JustinTimeCuber]

1. Big money has been tried and it hasn't worked for the Democrats. Hillary got WAY more money than Trump and still lost. Democrats have lost seats they shouldn't be losing. Take 0 corporate money and maybe people won't think you're a sellout or some establishment shill. Maybe you'll get a bit less money, but then what do you do? Go all over the place talking about how your opponent takes big money donations (as Republicans tend to do), and about how your average donation is twenny seven dollahs.
It's not impossible to get conservatives to think you're in touch with their needs. The country isn't super progressive on every social issue, but when it comes to economics, 60% support medicare for all (with hardly anyone arguing for it), 70% support Medicare as a program, 80% support Social Security, 80% support raising the minimum wage, I think it was around 70% in favor of some or a lot of action on climate change, etc.
People who might consider themselves pro-life or pro-"traditional marriage" whatever that means who are in poverty care more about the economic issues, in general.

2. That's mainly because the establishment press hasn't properly debunked Republican propaganda. Hammer an issue home and people will understand it a lot better.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Scarlet, I get that you don't want to lose a seat to a far-right Republican but I think it's worth trying to see if a progressive message can win over some right-leaning voters. I think polls show that we can. It'll be hard but do will be re-electing Manchin in 2024.

[JustinTimeCuber]

http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understanding-isnt-the-problem

Someone who has a lot more experience with white rural america then you.

As someone who has a lot more experience with white rural American than you, I can assure you that that article is bullsh1t.

It's hyperbolic, but it gets at the fact that there is a pretty big information bubble in many of these places. It was obviously colored by the experience of its writer (growing up in a white rural area).

It's beyond hyperbolic, it's plain wrong. Given the lack of specifics I honestly doubt that this person has as much experience with rural America as they claim. As someone who has lived in rural areas almost their whole life I can tell you that what this supposed "article" is describing is pure fantasy.

And this claimed existence of an information bubble is a lie. We use the same internet, watch the same tv, and listen to the same music that your people do. We are not foreigners living in a separate world from the rest of America. Our beliefs are not built on ignorance or a lack of knowing the "good facts". Our views are as built on bigotry as much as yours are.

And I find it ironic that the writer of this piece looks down on us rural troglodytes when as Averroes pointed out in another thread, he writes about us the way Columbus wrote about the "savages" of Hispanola.

Good facts, as opposed to bad facts, I'm sure you mean.

because good facts are the best, and they also define my political views- I'm for good things and against bad things.

[JustinTimeCuber]

R - Retarded (Donald Trump)
D - Very Retarded (Elizabeth Warren)
L - Sane (Ron Paul)
G - Good intentions but bad policies (Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein)
I - My waifu

My waifu will win by a landslide, 99.99999% likely. Greens might win Vermont.

you forgot this

R - Retarded (Donald Trump)
D - Very Retarded (Elizabeth Warren)
L - Sane (Ron Paul)
G - Good intentions but bad policies (Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein)
I - My waifu

My waifu will win by a landslide, 99.99999% likely. Greens might win Vermont.

Discuss with maps

Governor Waifu - 535 EV
Senator Bernie Sanders - 3 EV

[JustinTimeCuber]

I'm running for the Chamber of Delegates and also withdrawing.

I read this as "I'm running for the Chamber of Delegates and also winning"

Peebs just automatically gets elected if she runs.

I'm going to win. I'm going to win so much. I'm going to win at scissors, I'm going to win at Quantum Leap. I'm going to win so much, I'm going to be so sick and tired of winning, I'm going to say to myself "Dammit, Peebs, you can’t win anymore." I'll say "Dammit Peebs. I, uh, you, this is confusing. Either way, I don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else." And I’m going to say "Pull yourself together, woman! I'm going to keep winning, winning, winning, I'm going to make Atlasia great again."