use it to bump the thread

I mean, they are 3 of the most vulnerable Democratic Senators in red states, so its no wonder they are trying to save face by preventing a shutdown

**GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN**

**RED STORM CONFIRMED**

explain

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/157385402

new thread

@🎃Boo-ton🎃 lmao those senators are the most vulnerable, if they primary them and replace them with leftist nutjobs then Rs are sure to win in those states

wait a minute

that gives me an idea

what if we try a psyop where we sockpuppet as leftists and campaign to replace these dems for "betraying the progressive agenda" and the such?

great idea

A "progressive" would never win in those states

Even in the bluer states which lean red, like Wisconsin, the Dems are worrying about losing it because they have Baldwin there.

Check the Dem list for the red states and campaign for the biggest prog nutjob you can find.

Maybe you can go to the blue wave subreddit or something and try to do it there

I feel like Justice Democrats is more of an asset to us than the left

They turned on Uygur and now they're turning on their most risky seats

The shutdown itself is more useful for us than not, simply because the dems are splitting hairs over DACA and the general population cares more about government funding than DACA 2 to 1.

Add this with the March for Life in DC, and the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign, and this could be the beginning of a new resolve for the right wing.

I'm really liking this.

Manchin got popular because he was a moderate democrat who supported coal. He’s not as vulnerable as Sherrod Brown but Brown is one of the most liberal people in congress so of course he’s not going to vote with the republicans.

lel

Trump making a macho comment about pussy? Riot. Weinstein actively sticking his fat cock down women's throats for roles? nada.

People are retarded

so true

Remember when Al Franken groped all those women

And nobody Gave a shit

Democrats don’t care about this

Also, Ron Wyden is insanely creepy

This is DEFINITELY something we can exploit

Sorry guys, I just got back home from another date

I'll get settled down and make a new general in a bit

Stop dating women!

https://www.schumershutdown.com/

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/157450261

bump the thread goys

someone bump

it's at page 8

🎵 _You might say I'm a dreamer_ 🎵

you said it would take a 10 point margin for them to take back the house, right?

10.3, yes

if things keep going this way, this could be good news for things to come

this is the momentum

the gov shutdown, the march for life, this is the wind behind our backs that we need

a new resolve

of course, having -7 pts. isn't a good thing, but it will prevent impeachment

what would be your predicted number of seats obtained by both parties in the house if it remains at that level?

Democrats would gain 10 seats at most in the house, Republicans would gain at least 3 seats

so a net loss of 7 seats (at worst) for Rs?

That is acceptable

I'm gonna repost your earlier margins that you gave in the discord:

D+2.9: R 236; D 199
D+5.9: R 231; D 204
D+7.9: R 225 ; D 210
D+9.9: R 218; D 217
D+12.9: R 196; D 239

yeah, a majority is still a majority

it might make things more susceptible to republicuck sabotage though

230-205 that would be though, if I'm doing the math right

around 53% of the house's seat makeup

we can still get a ton of things done with that composition

Is the average House Republican more or less cucked than the average Senate Republican? It may be that Senate Republicans are more prominent and that's why we judge them so much, but I feel that House Republicans are okay for the most part.

If we can keep the wind to our backs, we could make that margin better

The House is far less cucked, they've passed some good immigration bills but the Senate hasn't taken them up yet

Yeah, the house itself is less cucked

but 55% of the representatives are republicans, which is a far cry from the Senate which has 51 and used to have 52 Republican senators

I'm asking per capita, is the average house republican better than the average republican senator

there's a possibility that the larger number overshadows the cucks in the house

I'm going to research this, brb

I was going to use conservativereview but looks like the scorecard section of the site is down

these are all the House Reps that are better or as good as the best Republican Senator

2% of peer group vs 8 % of peer group

well, looks like the hypothesis is right, senators are more cucked per capita than representatives

I'd like a source for that btw so I can get into the details

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/tools/grades/list/0/CONGRESS/US/H/Grade/Active

the House of Representatives has always been more partisan (which means it tends to be less 'cucked') than the Senate

it makes sense

the House consists of specific districts whereas the Senate consists of the entire state, which means that Senators have to appeal to a wider array of people, which means they can't be as partisan

unless it's a state like Wyoming

or Massachusetts

whoa it's actually a lot more than 8%

whereas a state like Florida is going to have senators that have to appeal to both the left and the right

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/tools/grades/list/0/CONGRESS/US/HR/Grade/Active

hence moderate Dems like Bill Nelson

15% w/ an A+

oh right

2% of the senate republicans w/ an A

So, if the margins in the house get close, you shouldn't have to worry about it stalling as much as in the senate

we simply need a majority

/ourguy/ Pete Sessions could be in jeopardy in Texas-32

I'd say at least 53% would be good for whatever bill we need

there are a number of Reps we can afford to lose, but Sessions isn't one of them

give me an analysis

He's an immigration hardliner but his Congressional District went for Hilllary Clinton in 2016 so it makes him vulnerable,
makes sense since it's a suburban district,
fortunately, he's the only non-cucked Rep that is at risk this election season

Looks like he has a good electoral record

he kept strong during the 2006 situation

in 2016 they only ran 3rd parties against him

hmm

definitely should keep him safe, make sure to add these points into the /rsg/ threads

yeah, he's going to need a shitton of money and ground game

and demoralization efforts for the other side on top of that

also add this into the Texas channel

yikes, his approval is at 42% A/32% D

+10?

it's a solid margin, but he's still vulnerable to a well-liked contestor

well, let's make sure that he gets some wacko to run against him

I feel that the accelerationist principle works to some extent as long as those people don't actually get elected, only nominated

I wish we could make a sort of shell Democratic strategist think tank company which at face value is to promote 'progressive values' but in actuality is only to ensure Republicans get elected

In any case, add the Pete Sessions situation to the <#399759501470990336> channel

Speaking of Texas, how is our boi Teddy doing?

He's safe, 14 point lead over his dem adversary

source?

https://cbpolling.press/2017/12/29/ted-cruz-leads-early-texas-senate-poll-over-beto-orourke/

Alright, good. Cruz in an ally in the Senate, we need to keep him.

Highly doubt his seat is in jeopardy

we've gotta have all bases covered

Even though its likely that Cruz will win Texas, It's a bit too early. There might be some controversies from now until November that might cost him

well yeah, same thing applies to senators from states like New York and Massachusetts

True

Gilibrand in NY could get into a freak accident and the Democratic nominee could turn out to be a pedo

Cruz could have a heart attack from delicious Texan food

kek

But one question, are both the Republican challengers to NY and Massachusetts relatively popular or relatively unknown

Also, how is the situation coming along with Ohio and Sherrod Brown? Is there another Republican challenger that can possibly unseat him? I know Mandel dropped out and the other dude didn't want to join

in NY, it's been some lady named Wendy Long who keeps running (and losing)

I never heard of her until I started doing research on past elections

any Republican who wants to win in NY has to work on getting upstate and conservative areas in Long Island to turn out

and on top of that, win over enough voters in NYC, which means they'll have to campaign pretty hard in NYC as well

NYC is small geographically speaking, so that isn't as hard as it sounds

Ok, because another factor to consider with TX is that Beto is relatlvely unknown, while Ted is very well known in TX which could aid him.

Does anyone have the link to who is racing against who in the House and Senate?

anyone?

primaries haven't happened yet

for instance, Beto is the frontrunner for Texas in the Dem primary, but it's not guaranteed

Right, but I want the link where it showed who all the possible candidates were running against each state so far. I believe it was one of the links on the midterms thread

ah

hmm

do you remember what the link looked like

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2018

this might be close enough

late

I believe it the homepage was green

found it

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/G18/events.phtml?format=chronological&type=e

yeah, when you said 'green' I immediately went to look for that one

Hey

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/157555181

new thread

@Rhodesiaboo what's up ?

Where is that headline from

CNN

Oh yeah, going back to the race in Maryland, do you know who the Republican candidate is? A former CIA agent

Sam Faddis

lmao

a cia agent potentially competing against an intelligence leaker

what a world we live in

Meaning, if Manning gets elected in the primaries, she would be up against a CIA agent. So Manning would probably have the upper hand rofl

I think having Manning in the senate would be much more interesting than having some generic democrat in

Oh yeah definitely. Cardin is a shill to Israel and expanding NSA surveillance

@Snickers you say you're a leftist, I'm curious, what specific form of leftism do you believe in?

I said earlier I was socially and fiscally liberal

fiscally liberal as in a lot of programs, w/ more taxes?

liberal's a pretty broad term

a lot or more programs but less taxes and more government spending

taxes don't fund government spending

how would you offset the debt

whats wrong with the debt? what's wrong with the deficit for that matter

the interest rate the Fed puts on the debt increases as the deficit/debt gets larger

in a couple decades, interest on the debt is going to be one of the largest items of expenditure

this causes a pretty large budget crisis the further out we get, financial crises and the such

lmao didn't intend for this to turn into a debate

When interest rates go up, the government pays more into the debt by increasing the deficit. And because the federal deficit is private sector savings, it will stimulate the economy depending on who is holding the bonds

I don't think that's very sustainable though

seems a bit of a Keynes thing

Also with regard to the interest rates, we don't really know whether or not it will speed up or slow down the economy

I guess I would fall more towards Keynes, but I guess I would be a post-Keynesian, more specifically someone who follows MMT

I'm more of a per capita economic kind of guy

When I think about a program or something, I think: would this better the life of the average American or would they be better keeping their own money

Also with regard to whether or not a debt level is sustainable or not, just know that we can never go bankrupt with our own money, since we the US gov is the currency issuer, not the user.

of course, but devaluing and the such could become a problem

That's why we have taxes

One main function of taxes is to regulate our spending power

But regardless, if you mean "devaluing" as in inflation, then I think its a bit exaggerated

by what means

It's poorly understood is what I meant to say. Inflation isn't always caused by government spending

I would say unemployment is a way bigger problem tbh

well yeah, obviously the government isn't printing 3 trillion notes per year

it's velocity of spending

Right

I would agree with that; It would certainly cause an inflationary crises if we all just went and funded free college, medicaid, etc. in one night

The issue is that the US dollar is like a sort of lingua franca of currency for foreign investors, I don't think a lot of them would continue to use it if it were to be tampered with too much

Also, the issue of what people do with their savings

In general the government should be held responsible to avoid any price inflation when competing for scarce resources, but at the same time make sure we have decent living standards and full employment

100%

I think we ought to economically make it manageable for a family to have enough money to meet the standard of living of 4 people from one source of income

I think one parent should be responsible for child-rearing, the other at work

The issue of families raising their kids with entertainment is partially what's causing all this social degredation (at least from my view and most of the right)

There are constraints that we should be worried about; inflation and resources are two of them. But whether or not we can pay for it is not one of them

What you guys talking about

economics

Sounds neat

When are we starting another Red Wave Thread On pol

IE the problem with social security isn't whether or not we will run out of money, but it is if there are enough labor output and resources for everyone on social security to buy what they want without any scarcity. This is why full employment is essential

not just that, but families who can sustain themselves need to start having children

I can never buy the idea that immigrants will pay for social programs, it's the most ridiculous and stupid idea I've ever heard

I think they tried that in Sweden and then they had to INCREASE the retirement age

plus it completely fucks with social trust

I don't think we've got your opinion on the immigration and nationalism question, what are your thoughts on social issues.

@Rhodesiaboo DJ Trump in NYC usually handles that

Not as well versed on social issues as I am on other issues, but I'm socially liberal.

as libertarian kind of liberal

progressive kind of liberal i guess

that's fair enough, so people should be able to do what they want is your basic outline?

what are your thoughts toward nationalism

I don't mind people taking pride of their country, but when it just outright distracts people from issues facing the country then I would have to be against that.

I mean in relation to globalism

What do you mean globalism

would, in your opinion, people benefit from the united states looking over its interests or for people to go where they want

it's hard to explain really

Do you think that the US citizen's interests significantly matter more than the interests of the general person on earth, that's a better way to phrase it

Oh yeah.

I think I know what you mean by globalism. I think of it as neoliberalism

yeah

Yeah, neoliberalism is disastrous

I don't think people get what something like allowing everyone to go anywhere would do

A nation benefits from its essence which can't be obtained elsewhere

having people everywhere go anywhere would just diminish that

Oh that's not what I was thinking of. I was thinking more along the lines of putting the elite's interest over that of the people

I mean that's a byproduct of that

I just think people should make their own nations better, improve their character and culture

Another way to ask the question maybe is, what do you think of multiculturalism, that hits the core

of what I'm asking

I don't know much about it, but I guess I'm fine? Don't really have an opinion on it other than as long as you respect others I respect you

yeah I'm not going to press you on it if you don't care too much

I just think it'd be in the American interest to try maintaining a national character, that being of a more homogenous, english speaking nation with values of entrepreneurship and opportunity ingrained

plus, IMO, who we let in also affects economics to a large degree, I think that if we do have these safety nets, we ought to have them for American citizens, and latino immigrants have a major disposition to taking welfare payments

I think that before we let someone in, we ought to ask "is this person going to put in more than take out" sort of a JFK "ask what you can do for your country" sort of system

I still have no clue as to what you believe when it comes to immigration, so feel free to say whatever

Again, with regard to welfare, just know that your tax money is not going towards government spending. We don't have a scarce amount of money, so it doesn't really matter if that latino immigrant takes more welfare money than an another person

well. that's how one can see it

we'll have to deal with the debt carriers eventually though

anyways, interesting discussion, thanks for speaking your mind

Apparently PA's Supreme Court just ordered the heavily Republican districts rewritten

I wonder if that'll go to the national Supreme Court

Shits fucked

TODAY IS SPECIAL ELECTION IN PA-35
HOW THE HELL AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO KNOWS THIS??
https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_District_35
https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_District_35
https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_District_35

I know about it

it's too early in the day to create an /rsg/