US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit

[lokisnow]

There may be an incipient wave developing in the state legislature races in Nevada based on early voting. The friend that set me that link said they are hearing the same thing is happening in ca

 

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

[Martell Spy]

Bit of local Washington politics. It's too bad, it doesn't look like the initiative to create public campaign financing is going to pass. Fortunately it appears the minimum wage initiative will pass.

Democrats Inslee, Clinton, Murray all leading in state poll
Originally published October 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm Updated October 25, 2016 at 6:41 am
The latest Elway Poll results in Washington state: Hillary Clinton, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and the minimum-wage initiative all have healthy leads.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/democrats-inslee-clinton-murray-all-leading-in-state-poll/

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, Castel said:

At that point why would you want to be Speaker?

I thought Ryan was The Guy, the one with the cachet to actually hold his party together. If they drop seats (which is seeming likely) then the hardliners  would have more power, and if they'll boot Ryan...why would you want that job?

Ryan was never The Guy. He barely managed to get elected to the Speakership if you remember. I believe some Democrats had to help him out but I can't remember for sure.

Either way, as Speaker he's basically opposed still by the hard right teaper types and so his star has been falling somewhat. And he never had the full support of his House members to begin with.

Of course, let's also remember that Ryan got the job because literally no other Republican wanted it, including the guy who already had it (ie - Boehner).

[Shryke]

13 hours ago, Inigima said:

I've been saying this for several years, and it's not just this election. Our system is too reliant on people in office acting in good faith. The takeaway for US politics in the post-W era is that many of the cornerstones of the system are merely customs, not rules, and that there are no real consequences to flouting them. The refusal to hold SCOTUS nominee hearings is the most obvious example, but it infests all of our politics.

The electorate is sufficiently polarized that legislators can do basically whatever they want to stick it to the other party, and the base is unlikely to punish them. Hell, most of the base will probably give its full-throated approval. But even if it doesn't, most of its constituents still won't throw them out of office, because that would mean the other guy gets in. Nowhere is that clearer than Donald fucking Trump.

The american system is pretty awful is the problem and essentially can't survive the existence of ideologically coherent parties. There's too many ways to stop anything from being done and no incentive not to do this. And so as the parties have become more coherent in their political ideals, the system has gradually ground to a halt. Because the only thing keeping it going after that change is a belief that the government should function, even if you completely disagree with the people running it.

 

Like, the GOP is stalling the SCOTUS nomination process because they know if they let the Democrats fill that seat, it's over for them in a very fundamental way. They will have lost HUGE and for decades. And so they won't let it happen. And from a point of view of believing one's political ideology is correct there's no real reason why they shouldn't do it. There's no reason electorally either since their base agrees with them on the issue for the same reason. The system does not force them to let the SCOTUS function properly and so the only reason to do so is because you think the system should function.

[Shryke]

Anyway, Trump also did this on Tuesday:

 

"See, I'm great for hispanic people. Look how many I hire and who love me because I'll fire them if they don't say they love me!"

[Martell Spy]

Francis Fukuyama: America is in “one of the most severe political crises I have experienced”

“I think this election year has suggested that maybe we were just lucky.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13352946/francis-fukuyama-ezra-klein

[Future Null Infinity]

Trump supporters strike again 

Supporter worries on C-SPAN Trump will start World War III: ‘But we’d probably win hopefully’

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Francis Fukuyama: America is in “one of the most severe political crises I have experienced”

“I think this election year has suggested that maybe we were just lucky.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13352946/francis-fukuyama-ezra-klein

Looking forward to listening to this later today. Thanks.

[Inigima]

14 hours ago, Swordfish said:

One wonders in this hypothetical if the left would accept this result.

I have a guess..........

Of course we would. The rules is the rules. If we can swallow the 2000 horseshit for the good of the country, we can swallow a bad president who's actually supposed to be there.

[Martell Spy]

The Nasty Rise and Fall of Donald Trump
With the candidate flailing in the polls, some on the right are wondering if a better version of the man wouldn’t be winning. But that kinder, gentler Trump would’ve lost in the primaries.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-nasty-rise-and-fall-of-donald-trump/505118/

[TrackerNeil]

5 hours ago, Shryke said:

Ryan was never The Guy. He barely managed to get elected to the Speakership if you remember. I believe some Democrats had to help him out but I can't remember for sure.

Either way, as Speaker he's basically opposed still by the hard right teaper types and so his star has been falling somewhat. And he never had the full support of his House members to begin with.

Of course, let's also remember that Ryan got the job because literally no other Republican wanted it, including the guy who already had it (ie - Boehner).

I think, in taking the gavel, Paul Ryan ended any realistic chance he had of being president. Assuming Clinton wins next month, Ryan is looking forward to four years of having to ram must-pass legislation by his own caucus, and by 2020 he will be considered a squish and a sellout. Not too good, is it, chief?

[Fez]

Fascinating article in Bloomberg this week. Its the kind of in-depth deep-dive into Trump campaign operations that usually comes out in late November after elections, not two weeks before. No idea why the Trump campaign allowed it to come out now. Its a long article, but I recommend it. Some big takeaway for me are:

-Trump does actually have a highly sophisticated polling operation, like one would expect a Presidential campaign to have, and they know Trump is losing badly. They spend $100,000 per week on polling and have developed a presuadable voter model in the battleground states (its not as impressive as Clinton's operation, but its something).

-In terms of criticalness of the state and need to focus on it, they rank the top 5 as: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

-The blockbuster quote of the article is :“

Quote

We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.

However, these don't refer to any illegal; they're media operations designed to get people discouraged about the election and not vote. The campaign has given up on trying to persuade undecided voters (which was pretty clear already) and just wants to turn out its base and drive downs support among the Democratic base. One example they cite is that they've started running ads on African American-focused radio stations about the whole 'super predator' thing again.

-The campaign has developed a pretty impressive new contact list of voter and donors. And because it was developed entirely using Trump campaign funds, Trump will own it after the election, not the RNC. It seems pretty clear that some core of this polling operation will be sticking with Trump (and Bannon) after the election is over and using this contact list for non-election purposes.

[The Marquis de Leech]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

-In terms of criticalness of the state and need to focus on it, they rank the top 5 as: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Amusingly, if Trump gets all five, and holds all other Romney states, but then loses Utah to McMullin, it's the dreaded no-one has 270 scenario.

[Ariadne23]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

The campaign has developed a pretty impressive new contact list of voter and donors. And because it was developed entirely using Trump campaign funds, Trump will own it after the election, not the RNC. It seems pretty clear that some core of this polling operation will be sticking with Trump (and Bannon) after the election is over and using this contact list for non-election purposes.

Fucksticks. Is it really so hard to boot somebody out of your party? I mean, if they all just disavowed him, he and his supporters would start another party, right? I get that they'll take it in the shorts for that for a few election cycles, but he'll take the whole party down with him otherwise.

I read Evan McMullin's issue page yesterday. That guy is a Republican. Why should he have to start a third party? How did these people so thoroughly lose their brand? It's been so long since I've seen any prototypical example of a regular Republican (vs. a Wolfowitz neocon, "compassionate conservative" W, Cruz, Ben Carson, Steve Bannon, etc.) that it felt kind of nostalgic. I guess I'm just fucking tired of their party having an identity crisis all the time. Pull it together already Republicans. You're going to have to boot some folks to invite some others in. Get it over with.

[The Anti-Targ]

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fascinating article in Bloomberg this week. Its the kind of in-depth deep-dive into Trump campaign operations that usually comes out in late November after elections, not two weeks before. No idea why the Trump campaign allowed it to come out now. Its a long article, but I recommend it. Some big takeaway for me are:

-Trump does actually have a highly sophisticated polling operation, like one would expect a Presidential campaign to have, and they know Trump is losing badly. They spend $100,000 per week on polling and have developed a presuadable voter model in the battleground states (its not as impressive as Clinton's operation, but its something).

-In terms of criticalness of the state and need to focus on it, they rank the top 5 as: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

-The blockbuster quote of the article is :“

However, these don't refer to any illegal; they're media operations designed to get people discouraged about the election and not vote. The campaign has given up on trying to persuade undecided voters (which was pretty clear already) and just wants to turn out its base and drive downs support among the Democratic base. One example they cite is that they've started running ads on African American-focused radio stations about the whole 'super predator' thing again.

-The campaign has developed a pretty impressive new contact list of voter and donors. And because it was developed entirely using Trump campaign funds, Trump will own it after the election, not the RNC. It seems pretty clear that some core of this polling operation will be sticking with Trump (and Bannon) after the election is over and using this contact list for non-election purposes.

Gotta love democracy. Outwardly candidates are encouraging everyone to register and get out and vote. Inwardly they seek to supress votes among demographics that are generally not well disposed to them and hoping large swathes of the population don't vote. And then lament low voter turnout after the election is over.

There's something to be said about legally forcing everyone to at least turn up and put a piece of paper in the ballot box.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Castel said:

At that point why would you want to be Speaker?

I thought Ryan was The Guy, the one with the cachet to actually hold his party together. If they drop seats (which is seeming likely) then the hardliners  would have more power, and if they'll boot Ryan...why would you want that job?

It might sound crazy, but I think Pence might actually be the next Speaker, assuming Trump loses and the Republicans hold the House.

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think, in taking the gavel, Paul Ryan ended any realistic chance he had of being president. Assuming Clinton wins next month, Ryan is looking forward to four years of having to ram must-pass legislation by his own caucus, and by 2020 he will be considered a squish and a sellout. Not too good, is it, chief?

A lot of Republicans are suggesting that if Ryan wants to run in 2020 or 2024, he should step down as Speaker after the election and then run for governor in WI in 2018. It's actually not a bad idea. 

[The Wedge]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It might sound crazy, but I think Pence might actually be the next Speaker, assuming Trump loses and the Republicans hold the House.

Pence is the governor of Indiana, so that is a little crazy.  But with this election cycle, who knows!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, The Wedge said:

Pence is the governor of Indiana, so that is a little crazy.  But with this election cycle, who knows!

His term is about to end. So that's not an impediment. 

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It might sound crazy, but I think Pence might actually be the next Speaker, assuming Trump loses and the Republicans hold the House.

If Ryan is out, and Republicans hold the House, I think the end result is Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. But only after a very protracted battle where it becomes clear no one has enough support from all slides so they settle on him since he's next in line. And he probably lasts about a year before there's another fight.

However, if the Republican majority is very small (like 5 seats or less) there is still the chance that Democrats go to someone like Charlie Dent and say 'Hey, wanna be Speaker? Bring along a couple of your friends and we'll all vote for you. We have a few guarantees we'll need from you, but otherwise you'll have control over the House floor.' 

Meanwhile, if Democrats take the House, their majority would also likely be very small and I would not count on Pelosi being able to become Speaker either. There's always a few defections from her and if Democrats have a majority a lot of that will be because of new Blue Dogs. If that's the case though, there shouldn't be too much turmoil, Steny Hoyer is the second-in-line and is a safe choice that everyone would be okay with (although maybe not thrilled about).

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It might sound crazy, but I think Pence might actually be the next Speaker, assuming Trump loses and the Republicans hold the House.

A lot of Republicans are suggesting that if Ryan wants to run in 2020 or 2024, he should step down as Speaker after the election and then run for governor in WI in 2018. It's actually not a bad idea. 

No, it's not. A few years in the governors mansion might take some of the squish stink off him...assuming, of course, that said squishiness doesn't sink him in a gubernatorial primary. He's garnered a lot of ill will from Trump supporters, and those hyper-partisans have a long memory.