Call me a cynic, but I am convinced things are going to get a lot more violent before they get better, if they ever do. I'm reading articles and comments in right wing media, and they've ratcheted up the persecution complex to levels I've never seen. The left certainly isn't overflowing with sympathy after this shooting either.
Perhaps if the president didn't talk about grabbing women by the pussy, banning people from an entire religion from entering our country, and blocking off our southern border simply because.... mexico? (even though the Canadian border is wide open and is a much greater threat for terrorists entering, but I digress) I'm not ready to blame this entirely on him, but I will blame the increasing violence of the two sides on the people who voted in trump and people like him. You don't get extremists representing you without extremists backing them.
Speaking as a guy who has passed through the US/ Mexico border many, many, MANY times, I'm willing to wager that the Canuckistanis run a tighter ship than the Mexicans regarding who they let into their country. EDIT: With that said, I don't support any damn border wall, and if it's built, Mexico will NEVER pay for it.
I was expecting an uptick in violence after the election regardless of the outcome. While I would've obviously preferred a different outcome I was under no delusion that there was going to be relief from the chaos if there had been. People were talking about taking up arms if they lost and that only got worse once, after the Russia stuff started circulating, Trump started preaching that if he lost it meant the election was rigged. I don't think people have half the balls they say they do when it comes to pretty much anything involving guns so I wasn't exactly in fear of a straight up armed rebellion or anything, but both sides were too angry for there to be some nice pleasant transition ether way. Now there's one side feeling emboldened and one side feeling angry, and the other option was one side feeling angry and the other feeling fired up in this revolutionary mindset. Not a great formula either way.
One day, American republicans will decide to have their opinion on Cuba not be given to them by a bunch of Miami fuckheads who aren't really Cuban.
As chaotic as things have been, there really hasn't been much of an uptick in violence. In the areas where the murder rate has been going up it actually doesn't seem very related to politics. As much as the media has been playing things up recently, it's quite comparable to how things had gone the previous two years. Now that people have gone from incessantly whining about each other to full on hating each other it could certainly get a lot worse, but we're not there yet.
Noooooo they dont. The Canadian-US border is the longest border in the world and is barely secured. There are countless areas where someone could just walk back and forth. The southern Mexican border however is extremely tight. They have a very, very strict policy when it comes to illegal immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras, etc.
Canada has loose border security because they only share it with the US. Their immigration policy is actually quite similar to the sort of skills based entry policy mainstream republicans want to implement here in the states, even though the perception is that they're a progressive bastion. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-may-canada-immigration-policy-20161227-story.html
I think the democrats are like 2 of 12 on aggregate of these Blue Wave referendum elections. The two being in Delaware or north east somewhere.
Let me start by saying I don't wish to kick the Democrats while they are down. But how many times, when challenged by this reality will the DNC and it's surrogates continue to state that the problem is that everyone is stupid and not look inward? You can't keep touting things like this as an indicator that people are unhappy with Trump or the RNC and then lose without some consequence. They spent buckets of money on this one seat and have less than nothing to show for it by making such a big deal about it.
Not just buckets of money, millions poured in from California to support the Democrat. I think a lot of people down there had a problem with that. While the special election is the main story, I think the bigger one is whats happening in Saudi Arabia. Apparently the King has replaced the Crown Prince. This could have a huge impact on the status quo in the Middle East. The now heir to the throne is relatively progressive, but also pretty aggressive when it comes to Saudi military/foreign policy.
I think you're missing some history here. This is the 6th district, which Newt Gingrich first captured in 1978, and it has been solidly Republican since then. The district is comprised mainly of wealthy white northern suburbanites. Although the fact that the Democrats spent more money on this election than any other House election in history and still lost makes their efforts seem futile, the fact that an established Republican who served as GA's Secretary of State did not walk away with this election is an indicator of the Republicans' approval in general and Trump's in particular.
Sort of. Some of that history doesn't really apply, though, and being an "established Republican" isn't the same as "popular, successful politician." It was a special election in a short time. Everybody ran on the same ballot, that contained 11 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 2 undeclared. It's not like either side had 18 months to hold primaries and mount a campaign from an established person from their party. Osoff doesn't live in the district, Handel lost a run for Governor and Senator since she was Secretary of State of Georgia. She is the first woman to be elected to congress as a Republican. I don't think it serves as a referendum for or against Trump in any way, and was a "meh" election in a "meh" political climate.
I agree. I think the fact that the media and a lot of dems were calling it a referendum on Trump was a stupid talking point that painted themselves into a corner when they lost. I do think the GOP should have won it by a bigger majority though. I also think this election stunk of "elitism" and folks from Georgia and similar places can smell that shit a mile away. Instead of it being a referendum on Trump, I think it could be a look into the future on 2018 and 2020 if the dems don't actually pay attention to the people they claim to represent.
Really? A district that votes Republican since 1978 was 3 percentage points away from voting in a Democrat. If it isn't a referendum, then it's definitely a sign that Democrats are at least energized.
It turns out that #NotMyPresident and #FuckTrump is not a very good political platform on which to base your party's campaign and identity. Will they learn? I'm beginning to doubt it.
Yes, really. For all the reasons I stated in the part of my quote you deleted, or - typical - didn't bother to read. Trump won in that district by 1.5 points. I don't think that particular election told anybody anything, other than educated white voters hate stupid politicians. If Democrats want to read into that election that either "the Democrats are energized," they are doomed to repeat their recent election failures, and if Republicans think this close win is any kind of show of support for Trump, they are also wrong. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rgia-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-the-midterms/
Except that's not even remotely the campaign Ossoff ran. Meanwhile the Republicans were playing ads that basically said he was a terrorist sympathizer, and apparently that did work. The Democrats need to learn what they're up against. You can't expect to campaign for a few months and win --even if it's a well run campaign-- when your opponents never stop campaigning.
I don't quite get the logic here. A young guy with little experience running against a Republican in the deep South that is as seasoned a local politician as you can get. loses. Where does the surprise come in? This is Georgia, which as far as I can tell is one of the reddest red states on the East Coast. I can see if it was a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania, or fuck even Indiana, but I don't see why the Democrats thought they had a chance in hell. The guy didn't even live in the district! It's kind of like me being shocked GE didn't hire me, as opposed to the guy groomed for the role for years, with all the right connections, experience and talking points. This feels like the media fabricating a conflict, the respective parties picking that ball up and running with it to the tune of $50 fucking million. Can someone explain why this was supposedly up for grabs?