US Politics: Lock Him Up!

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

I'd go so far as to say that I'd wager more on there being no elections in 2020 years due to reasons of national security vs an impeachment. 

We've heard these concerns about 'no elections' before.  I'd place the chances of 'no elections in 2020' somewhere south of a zero percent chance.  

[Relic]

Just now, Swordfish said:

We've heard these concerns about 'no elections' before.  I'd place the chances of 'no elections in 2020' somewhere south of a zero percent chance.  

Well, neither of us is alone in our predictions. Mine slant towards Worst Case Scenario because I would love to be proved pleasantly wrong, but the divide between opinions re: America's future is growing every day. 

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Totally calculated.  Not sure it is good strategy in the long run.  But who knows.  Maybe this sort of stuff is sustainable.  I just don't think it is on this stage.  

I don't know either.  It is a much better strategy for campaigning than it is for governing, since this isn't the sort of thing that gets you votes in Congress or helps a key initiative pass constitutional muster.  BUT, thus far Trump seems to be "governing by campaigning", so who knows?

13 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think there is a 45% chance that he declines to run for a second term on James K. Polk type grounds, and Pence wins in an unspeakably ugly election in 2020.

I agree that not running for a second term is a very real possibility.  Declaring victory in the face of defeat is also a classic Trump move, and it's quite possible he is learning that being President is actually a stressful, horrible job.  And by all accounts he seems to hate it, and Melania is rumored to be miserable too (for what little that's worth).

This will go double if something goes wrong, which it always does.  I mean, Trump's position is currently "just won election, party controls all three branches of government, no major wars, economy growing".  It's pretty-much guaranteed to go downhill from here. 

Quote

There is a North Korean wild card here.  I don't know how it all games out.  

When I say really ugly election, I am mean really ugly.  That includes starting a war with somebody to improve flagging numbers. 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

Well, neither of us is alone in our predictions. Mine slant towards Worst Case Scenario because I would love to be proved pleasantly wrong, but the divide between opinions re: America's future is growing every day. 

True enough.  And I was only half serious about the 19 weeks thing.  I would be shocked if he makes it through a full term though.

[Relic]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I say really ugly election, I am mean really ugly.  That includes starting a war with somebody to improve flagging numbers. 

Yup.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In a world full of knightian uncertainty, I'm cautious about making predictions, with regard to the orange swamp thing.

But, there was one I'll make with almost absolute certainty: When the orange swamp thing flames out, the excuse will be, "but, but he wasn't a 'true conservative'!!!"

  I really think he will make it all the way through the 4 years.  There is too much wishful thinking in any other outcome.  I really am NOT sure he runs again - I'm with @Maithanet on this -, but could see him anointing his successor.  And I think the anointed one would win.  But then I think Republicans would lose big time after that term because that's the way American politics work.

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

We've heard these concerns about 'no elections' before.  I'd place the chances of 'no elections in 2020' somewhere south of zero percent chance.  

I'm with you on this.  

 

@Maithanet:  I don't disagree on your analysis of "really ugly election."  Though I think the war could end up happening faster than we think because  North Korea is crazy.  We'll see if another Republican president is drawn to the "Classic Error".....

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

We've heard these concerns about 'no elections' before.  I'd place the chances of 'no elections in 2020' somewhere south of a zero percent chance.  

I think that barring nuclear war, there will be elections in 2020.  The question is just whether those elections will be sufficiently fair and free that the outcome isn't predetermined.  I would rate the likelihood of that as somewhere between "Capitals win the next Stanley Cup" and "Redskins win the next Super Bowl". 

[James Arryn]

The thing about starting a war is, it will work.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I think that barring nuclear war, there will be elections in 2020.  The question is just whether those elections will be sufficiently fair and free that the outcome isn't predetermined.  I would rate the likelihood of that as somewhere between "Capitals win the next Stanley Cup" and "Redskins win the next Super Bowl". 

The one thing I will say is that you can be too clever by half in redistricting and some of the other shenanigans....So, again, unless things are changed in completely unpredictable ways, I don't think 2020 will be a landslide either way.  I think it will be another squeaker.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that barring nuclear war, there will be elections in 2020.  The question is just whether those elections will be sufficiently fair and free that the outcome isn't predetermined.  I would rate the likelihood of that as somewhere between "Capitals win the next Stanley Cup" and "Redskins win the next Super Bowl". 

What mechanisms do you see Trump putting inplace that would make 2020 less free and fair that 2106?

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What mechanisms do you see Trump putting inplace that would make 2020 less free and fair that 2106?

A combination of things:

 - Very broad voter purging of felons from voter rolls in democratic areas

 - More stringent voter ID requirements to make voting more difficult

 - Actions at state governments in key states to allocate presidential EVs by Congressional district instead of winner take all.  For example, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all have a Republican Trifeta.  If all four were to allocate by congressional district, then they are no longer swing states.  Because Republicans are drawning the districts in each of those states, it is virtually guaranteed that any election will have significantly more Republican EVs than Democratic ones.  For example, in those four states, there are 31 Republicans and 20 Democrats in Congress.  And that means that the swing states shift from places like Wisconsin and Florida to much harder to win states like North Carolina and Arizona.  This strategy becomes even more effective if Republicans are able to win the governorship of a couple more blue states, like Virginia. 

Most of those things would be done at the state and local level, but Trump would obviously be the mouthpiece, hammering the drum of "VOTER FRAUD!" 

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The one thing I will say is that you can be too clever by half in redistricting and some of the other shenanigans....So, again, unless things are changed in completely unpredictable ways, I don't think 2020 will be a landslide either way.  I think it will be another squeaker.

Are you saying there would be sufficient backlash to make the strategies I outlined above political losers?  I'm very skeptical of that.  Unless I am misunderstanding you. 

[all swedes are racist]

20 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What mechanisms do you see Trump putting inplace that would make 2020 less free and fair that 2106?

if he is still in the wh in 2106, may the rat gods have mercy on the mole-peoples souls

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, Maithanet said:

A combination of things:

 - Very broad voter purging of felons from voter rolls in democratic areas

 - More stringent voter ID requirements to make voting more difficult

 - Actions at state governments in key states to allocate presidential EVs by Congressional district instead of winner take all.  For example, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all have a Republican Trifeta.  If all four were to allocate by congressional district, then they are no longer swing states.  Because Republicans are drawning the districts in each of those states, it is virtually guaranteed that any election will have significantly more Republican EVs than Democratic ones.  For example, in those four states, there are 31 Republicans and 20 Democrats in Congress.  And that means that the swing states shift from places like Wisconsin and Florida to much harder to win states like North Carolina and Arizona.  This strategy becomes even more effective if Republicans are able to win the governorship of a couple more blue states, like Virginia. 

Most of those things would be done at the state and local level, but Trump would obviously be the mouthpiece, hammering the drum of "VOTER FRAUD!" 

Are you saying there would be sufficient backlash to make the strategies I outlined above political losers?  I'm very skeptical of that.  Unless I am misunderstanding you. 

What I meant is that populations over time move and shift politically and while redistricting can help preserve majorities in the medium term, not sure that it works long term.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

Why would a mental breakdown remove him from office if it didn't result in an impeachment? If his accusations against Obama are not based on evidence or part of a larger, Bannonesque calculation, but simply raging at 5 a.m. with no consideration for consequences, I'd say it qualifies as a mental breakdown by normal standards. Especially if you believe the stories that it comes as a reaction to the Sessions thing.

I was just leaving the door open for him to resign without being impeached.

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What mechanisms do you see Trump putting inplace that would make 2020 less free and fair that 2106?

All he has to do is enact some of the more draconian voter suppression laws we're seeing in specific states on the federal level. It really isn't that hard to achieve if there's no filibuster in place. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was just leaving the door open for him to resign without being impeached.

All he has to do is enact some of the more draconian voter suppression laws we're seeing in specific states on the federal level. It really isn't that hard to achieve if there's no filibuster in place. 

And how would he do that under our federal system, pray tell?

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Actions at state governments in key states to allocate presidential EVs by Congressional district instead of winner take all.  For example, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all have a Republican Trifeta.  If all four were to allocate by congressional district, then they are no longer swing states.  Because Republicans are drawning the districts in each of those states, it is virtually guaranteed that any election will have significantly more Republican EVs than Democratic ones.

Reallocating the EVs of those four states by district would be spectacularly stupid, even for Trump.  He won 55 of their 59 EVs.  If you reallocate by district, he certainly (no almost about it) gets significantly less EVs than 55.  What Trump would want to do is reallocate EVs by district in states that Hillary won, or are safe Dem.

[Swordfish]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was just leaving the door open for him to resign without being impeached.

All he has to do is enact some of the more draconian voter suppression laws we're seeing in specific states on the federal level. It really isn't that hard to achieve if there's no filibuster in place. 

Does the federal government even have the authority to enact those kinds of laws?  i was under the impression it did not.

But i see your point.  Is there any data on the actual effect of those kinds of laws?  My impression has always been that the impact in terms of numbers of people affected is drastically overstated, but it is an admittedly an uninformed opinion on my part.

 

[Fragile Bird]

It amazes me how this thread has all of a sudden woken up, and not a single post has been about the new immigration ban, other than mentioning it was signed.

Trump did not show his face, there was no fanfare. Tillerson, Sessions and Kelly showed up at the press conference and all talked briefly about how this legal order was made to protect the USA from parties coming in from failed states or ones that did not provide enough information to the US about their citizens. Then they marched out without taking questions.

Just a tad bit different from the last time.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

  I really think he will make it all the way through the 4 years.  There is too much wishful thinking in any other outcome.  I really am NOT sure he runs again - I'm with @Maithanet on this -, but could see him anointing his successor.  And I think the anointed one would win.  But then I think Republicans would lose big time after that term because that's the way American politics work.

Agree that it is borderline wishful thinking to believe that he won't serve out at least 4 years. So, I guess the best thing to do is for us to grab our e-tools and dig in, because a long barrage of utter nuttery cometh our way.

If had a planatir, I'd probably be like Pippin and would just have to look, and wouldn't be surprised if I saw the orange one sitting in office or his successor, and like Pippin, would be utterly terrified at what I saw and wished I hadn't looked.

I agree about the back and forth nature of American politics and I'm sure in 8 years people will be ready for a change. What I wonder though is whether Democratic Party will be able to take full advantage of the situation. Probably not, it's the Democratic Party we're talking about here. Besides that, I think it has some serious problems it needs to contend with, that I hope it fixes, but am a bit pessimistic it will.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It amazes me how this thread has all of a sudden woken up, and not a single post has been about the new immigration ban, other than mentioning it was signed.

Trump did not show his face, there was no fanfare. Tillerson, Sessions and Kelly showed up at the press conference and all talked briefly about how this legal order was made to protect the USA from parties coming in from failed states or ones that did not provide enough information to the US about their citizens. Then they marched out without taking questions.

Just a tad bit different from the last time.

Yes - and it will likely pass Constitutional muster unless a plaintiff can successfully show that it violates the 1st Amendment, which is probably a hard row to hoe.  I don't think it is impossible, given the history, but I think it's a much harder case now.  I'm also guessing because of the wiggle room, most of the sympathetic cases will get through, so the public outrage will be less.