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

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

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.

Unlikely. He had his chance and he fell flat on his face. I doubt the Republicans go back to that well. And after McCarthy there isn't any obvious choice in the House. Pence is the only person I can think of that checks off all the requisite boxes and is in good standing with each faction of the House Republicans.

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

 

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.' 

That certainly is an interesting idea, but I doubt it will happen. And if it did happen, I fear what would follow it (2018 would be a right wing backlash rivaling 2010). 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

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).

No, Pelosi would absolutely return to being Speaker, though I do wish the Democrats would start promoting some younger members of the party. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

For all the differences in methodology, I've noticed that the three sites (RCP, Sam Wang and 538) are all converging roughly to Clinton ~330 EV, Trump 208 EV. The reason for RCP being close as well is because their electoral map with no toss ups essentially relies on state polls to make the judgement, making it closer to the way 538 and Sam Wang do it.

I'll admit, there is still a bit of uncertainty where Ohio and Arizona will eventually fall, but I'm comfortable with stating that Clinton will end up around 330 EV when the election finally rolls around. I dont think there is enough time for this to change significantly.

[The Wedge]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

Someone who is not a US Representative can be Speaker of the House?

Honestly asking here, as these threads always seem to illuminate processes I had no idea existed.

 

[Shryke]

 

2 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

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.

Because their brand was a farce and a lie. There are few "regular Republicans". The party was built on an alliance of monied interests (pro-corporation, pro-deregulation, low-taxes-on-rich-people types and military and budget hawks mostly) and the deplorables and evangelicals they had gathered up to give them the numbers needed to win. All that's actually happened is Trump has bypassed the big wigs and gone straight to the base, who make up the largest share of Republicans. And by doing so he's exposed the real makeup of the GOP.

The idea that they can just boot some people out completely ignores why they invited those people into the GOP in the first place with stuff like the Southern Strategy. Without the deplorables and such, they can't win. The numbers don't add up.

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Unlikely. He had his chance and he fell flat on his face. I doubt the Republicans go back to that well. And after McCarthy there isn't any obvious choice in the House. Pence is the only person I can think of that checks off all the requisite boxes and is in good standing with each faction of the House Republicans.

Uh ... what?

Pence isn't a House member. He's an unpopular soon-to-be-former Governor.

Also a moron and a guy who hitched his star to a candidate who is about to go down in flames.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

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.

There certainly is some truth to that TN, and his approval ratings have plummeted as of late, but I don't think it's a crazy strategy if his goal is to win the Republican nomination. Because as of now I don't see it ever happening. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Wedge,

This is what Art. I, Section 2 of the US Constitution says about the Speaker of the House: 
 

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers

 

 

Therefore there is no express requirement that the Speaker an elected member of the House of Representatives.  It is simply that the Speaker has always been, by custom, a member of the House of Representatives.

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Unlikely. He had his chance and he fell flat on his face. I doubt the Republicans go back to that well. And after McCarthy there isn't any obvious choice in the House. Pence is the only person I can think of that checks off all the requisite boxes and is in good standing with each faction of the House Republicans.

That certainly is an interesting idea, but I doubt it will happen. And if it did happen, I fear what would follow it (2018 would be a right wing backlash rivaling 2010). 

No, Pelosi would absolutely return to being Speaker, though I do wish the Democrats would start promoting some younger members of the party. 

The problem with Pence is that while the Speaker doesn't need to be a member of the House, it always has been. I think there's too much inertia to go against that. And if Republicans do break that barrier, I think it opens up way too many other options for people. There's no reason from them to all converge on Pence when all of a sudden everyone can go with their favorite other politician/media personality.

I also don't expect a coalition like that to happen, but there is precedent of it happening in the states. It would depend on what the agreement looked like, but I can easily see Democrats going for it; and no Democrat who loses in 2018 would lose because of this, they'd have been doomed anyway because they won a very Republican district this year thanks to Trump. The Republicans involved would probably all lose, which is why this would only work if the margin is very small; like 3 or 4 of them. That's a small enough number that you might find that many who are close to retirement anyway and want to make a legacy.

And I really wouldn't be so confident about Pelosi getting the gavel back if the Democrats win. She got 184 of 188 Democrats in the October 2015 Speaker vote, 164 of 188 in January 2015, 192 of 200 in January 2013, 173 of 191 in January 2011, 255 of 256 in January 2009, and 233 of 233 in January 2007.

Other than that first time, she's never had unanimous support, and if Democrats only have a 2 or 3 seat majority, it'd be very easy to see the number of holdouts be larger than that

[The Wedge]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wedge,

This is what Art. I, Section 2 of the US Constitution says about the Speaker of the House: 
 

Therefore there is no express requirement that the Speaker an elected member of the House of Representatives.  It is simply that the Speaker has always been, by custom, a member of the House of Representatives.

Thanks, Scot!  Like I said, I always learn things in these threads.

How weird would that be, though; a Speaker who did not have a vote.

[TrackerNeil]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There certainly is some truth to that TN, and his approval ratings have plummeted as of late, but I don't think it's a crazy strategy if his goal is to win the Republican nomination. Because as of now I don't see it ever happening. 

Doesn't it seem like a lot of Republicans are coming out of this election worse than when they went in? Rubio and Jeb! were both humiliated by Trump, Cruz bollixed himself up over not-endorsing, then endorsing, then considering un-endorsing, Ryan is the target of Trump's anger--the whole thing is a big, red mess. I'm starting to think Scott Walker was the smartest of the bunch, getting out before the arrows started to fly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Uh ... what?

Pence isn't a House member. He's an unpopular soon-to-be-former Governor.

Also a moron and a guy who hitched his star to a candidate who is about to go down in flames.

You don't have to be a Member of Congress to be Speaker, his lack of popularity in Indiana is irrelevant, and again, he's the only guy I can think of that's prominent and in good standing with both the pro-Trump crowd and the never Trumpers. 

[alguien]

Dropped off my ballot last night. Early mail-in voting in Washington is the bomb. 

Was actually just as excited to vote for the expanded mass transit system initiative as I was for Clinton. 

[Zorral]

Quote

"Inside the Trump Bunker, With 12 Days to Go -- Bloomberg 

Regardless of whether this works or backfires, setting back GOP efforts to attract women and minorities even further, Trump won’t come away from the presidential election empty-handed. Although his operation lags previous campaigns in many areas (its ground game, television ad buys, money raised from large donors), it’s excelled at one thing: building an audience. Powered by Project Alamo and data supplied by the RNC and Cambridge Analytica, his team is spending $70 million a month, much of it to cultivate a universe of millions of fervent Trump supporters, many of them reached through Facebook. By Election Day, the campaign expects to have captured 12 million to 14 million e-mail addresses and contact information (including credit card numbers) for 2.5 million small-dollar donors, who together will have ponied up almost $275 million. “I wouldn’t have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn’t known they were building this massive Facebook and data engine,” says Bannon. “Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power.”

Since Trump paid to build this audience with his own campaign funds, he alone will own it after Nov. 8 and can deploy it to whatever purpose he chooses. He can sell access to other campaigns or use it as the basis for a 2020 presidential run. It could become the audience for a Trump TV network. As Bannon puts it: “Trump is an entrepreneur.”

Whatever Trump decides, this group will influence Republican politics going forward. These voters, whom Cambridge Analytica has categorized as “disenfranchised new Republicans,” are younger, more populist and rural—and also angry, active, and fiercely loyal to Trump. Capturing their loyalty was the campaign’s goal all along. It’s why, even if Trump loses, his team thinks it’s smarter than political professionals. “We knew how valuable this would be from the outset,” says Parscale. “We own the future of the Republican Party.”
 

The campaign had and has strategy and a long game from long before this POTUS election cycle began.

What seems odd is that this is the kind of article that tends to come out a couple of weeks after the election and the results are concluded.

Additionally "House Republicans Already Have a Plan to Make Hillary Clinton’s Presidency a Living Hell."

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Doesn't it seem like a lot of Republicans are coming out of this election worse than when they went in? Rubio and Jeb! were both humiliated by Trump, Cruz bollixed himself up over not-endorsing, then endorsing, then considering un-endorsing, Ryan is the target of Trump's anger--the whole thing is a big, red mess. I'm starting to think Scott Walker was the smartest of the bunch, getting out before the arrows started to fly.

Yup. Trump has tarred and feathered most of the Republicans' "deep bench." Nikki Haley's path to the 2020 nomination will be a cake walk. 

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. Trump has tarred and feathered most of the Republicans' "deep bench." Nikki Haley's path to the 2020 nomination will be a cake walk. 

She'll have a rough fight with Tom Cotton for it (who's already been stumping around Iowa the past few months, getting to know the GOP county chairs).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

She'll have a rough fight with Tom Cotton for it (who's already been stumping around Iowa the past few months, getting to know the GOP county chairs).

Cotton is a lightweight. Haley, on the other hand, is about as perfect as a candidate can be. 

ETA:

(I'll get back to your longer post in a bit)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Ted Cruz said there is plenty of precedent for fewer than 9 Supreme Court justices on the bench. 

Seems all the more reason that if democrats win the senate to get rid of the rest of the filibuster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/26/cruz-says-theres-precedent-for-keeping-ninth-supreme-court-seat-empty/

 

if Clinton wins, I really hope she does not renominate garland because that just validates the republican strategy. Get rid of the filibuster and give us Nguyen, keep Sri in your back pocket if you need an emergency appointment in 2019 or 2020. 

When Breyer retires at the end of this term, elevate Millet and give us a female majority on the court for the term starting fall 2017.

Then when Ginsberg retires at the end of the 2017/2018 term (which would also mean she'd edge out o'connor as the longest serving female justice), Kruger should be her replacement, which would lock in a female majority for probably another decade.

dont ruin a female majority court with re nominating garland!

If Garland does not get confirmed during a lame duck session, Clinton would be well advised imo to renominate him. 

Here's the reasoning behind it. Garland is apparently a well respected (across the aisle) and very qualified candidate. So shooting him down just to stick it to the GOP would a.) feed the narrative that Clinton is not interested in reaching across the aisle (the very reason many moderate/independents are so annoyed with the GOP), and b.) I am not sure Garland's colleagues are especially appreciative when one of their own get used as a political prop (there are enough lawyers on this forum, just ask them how they would feel about that), and c.) her shooting down an Obama nominee, on whose legacy she is (at least partly) running looks kinda bad. Even if you consider those to be minor concerns, it still looks like burning a whole lot of political capital to make a point. My guess is, that Obama assured Garland, that if a Democrat succeeds him, they will keep up his nomination. At least to me it is kinda hard to imagine that Garland would have agreed to be Obama's nominee otherwise, which would've basically reduced him to a political prop. 

Clinton will have a chance to pick 2-3 more nominees. Kennedy is 80 for crying out loud. So there's a fair chance that Clinton will get to pick successors for Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy.

As for Cruz, he is back to is self-righteous self-promotion gig. For me it's him doing a rehearsal, of how we will run in the primary in three years as the lone principled conservative who rejected Obama's nominee.  

[Ormond]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You don't have to be a Member of Congress to be Speaker, his lack of popularity in Indiana is irrelevant, and again, he's the only guy I can think of that's prominent and in good standing with both the pro-Trump crowd and the never Trumpers. 

Personally I think you all are being silly about this. Even if the constitution does not specifically say the Speaker must be a member of the House, I think that's a "tradition" that just will not be overcome. I do not see the people who are elected members thinking this is a good idea. If you elect someone who is a Speaker without being a member, what will his or her salary be? Will this person work for free? That seems unlikely. If not, the fact of having to pay an extra salary (even though it will work out to being tiny within the total federal budget) will really work against the Republicans with the general public. And I honestly do not think any member of the House is going to want to set a precedent of the Speaker not being a member, which reduces the chance they themselves will be Speaker one day. The Charlie Dent scenario, though I also think it is extremely unlikely, is way more plausible than the idea of Pence being Speaker. 

[S John]

24 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Doesn't it seem like a lot of Republicans are coming out of this election worse than when they went in? Rubio and Jeb! were both humiliated by Trump, Cruz bollixed himself up over not-endorsing, then endorsing, then considering un-endorsing, Ryan is the target of Trump's anger--the whole thing is a big, red mess. I'm starting to think Scott Walker was the smartest of the bunch, getting out before the arrows started to fly.

I've always thought Cruz was a creep and in all honesty I think I might rather be facing Trump in the general election than Cruz.  

That said, for a time, I actually gained a grain of respect for the guy when he was refusing to endorse Trump.  When he went on-stage at the Republican convention and didn't endorse him, I thought that he might actually have done something commendable that required a spine.  Unfortunately, he lost all of that grudgingly given respect and then some when he finally caved and endorsed Trump.  The man who insulted him, his wife, and his father on national television.  Now I think he's an even bigger worm than I initially thought.  

[TrackerNeil]

29 minutes ago, Notone said:

If Garland does not get confirmed during a lame duck session, Clinton would be well advised imo to renominate him. 

Here's the reasoning behind it. Garland is apparently a well respected (across the aisle) and very qualified candidate. So shooting him down just to stick it to the GOP would a.) feed the narrative that Clinton is not interested in reaching across the aisle (the very reason many moderate/independents are so annoyed with the GOP), and b.) I am not sure Garland's colleagues are especially appreciative when one of their own get used as a political prop (there are enough lawyers on this forum, just ask them how they would feel about that), and c.) her shooting down an Obama nominee, on whose legacy she is (at least partly) running looks kinda bad. Even if you consider those to be minor concerns, it still looks like burning a whole lot of political capital to make a point. My guess is, that Obama assured Garland, that if a Democrat succeeds him, they will keep up his nomination. At least to me it is kinda hard to imagine that Garland would have agreed to be Obama's nominee otherwise, which would've basically reduced him to a political prop.  

Why would she look bad? Because she didn't agree to go along with a nominee chosen by the previous president? Exactly how many Democrats are going to blame her for that?

In my view, Republicans are going to oppose whomever Clinton appoints, so she might as well go with the nominee she likes best and fight on that ground. There might be some bruised egos over Garland, but those will fade with time. Besides, Garland is a grown man and knew what he was getting into when he accepted the nomination. He'll be just fine.