U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[DMC]

I've lost my patience (not with you, with how long it takes to make a damn post right now), so I'll be brief:

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That was true before. As we saw in 2016, there wasn't a correlation between representative voting and presidential voting. That was a first, but assuming that it'll go back to the way it was is a mistake.

All 2016 demonstrated was that Trump was unpopular enough to match the representative voting (which you're overstating here, it was like, 3 points).  In terms of classic indicators, the vote against the incumbent party was pretty spot on.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Or it'll kill the investigation and make people forget about it.

No, it most certainly won't make people forget about it.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And...so? Most people barely know who the AG is, much less what they do. Him appointing Cormyn or Cruz would be awesome for them, and have no real weakness. Do you honestly believe that Joe Republican will be all up in arms because he fired Jeff Sessions? They didn't get mad about Flynn, and he was far more outspoken and out there. 

Right.  The original argument here was that the base would not be angry at a GOP Senator for blocking Session's successor (say that ten times fast) while - in a purple district - that's much more of an electoral risk among Dems and independents that would be enraged.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right - a 10 point drop for firing Mueller is the citation needed. 

I didn't mean 10 point drop - I meant going from an 8 point deficit to a 10 point deficit.  That's a 2 point drop, again, which I'm referring to independents.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

GWB's numbers didn't decline that low until the height of the great recession, and even in spite of a shitty war and scandal and other issues his numbers didn't drop below 35%.

Dubya's numbers most certainly did drop below 35% - for good by about May 2007.  See the Gallup presidential approval center.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I honestly don't know what you're asking here. Sessions not speaking to Trump at all is kind of a big deal, period, and Sessions being stubborn and dickish to Trump makes it more likely he'll be fired, even if he's doing what Trump wants. Trump hates petulant people against him. My bet is that Sessions will be gone, possibly as early as Friday, and almost certainly will be gone if the ACA repeal doesn't go well. 

I'm saying Sessions is being proactive in trying to keep his job.  You don't do that if you plan to resign by Friday.  I haven't seen it where it's said Sessions is not speaking to Trump, just that they're not speaking.  I'm sure Sessions would take his call, he's just understandably not going to reach out while getting torched daily by the guy.

[Inigima]

I really think you are still acting as though the rules of 90s/00s politics still apply, and they clearly do not. I'm not saying there's a 0% chance you're right, but I'm saying your optimism is unwarranted.

Say Trump fires Mueller (via surrogate). There are a few possible negative outcomes for Republicans, none of which are guaranteed.

Trump has literally been committing impeachable offenses since day 1 of his presidency. Republicans have publicly shown zero inclination to do so. This reason might be sexy enough to do it... or it might not. Democrats can't do it without Republicans.

If Trump fires Mueller, his approval rating might drop. Or it might not! The core lunatic base has shrugged off everything so far. Why not this?

Let's say it does. Who cares? The president can have 0% approval ratings, yet still be president and sign laws and issue executive orders and nuke a foreign power for the lulz.

Maybe poor presidential approval ratings will make Republicans impeach him! Or maybe they won't. Presidential approval ratings mean jack shit for Republican electoral prospects unless voters decide they do, and Republicans still like Trump.

If Republicans don't impeach, they face 2018 elections. For that to mean negative outcomes for them, their constituents have to vote for either a primary challenger or a Democrat. The first is plausible, but it remains rare to successfully primary your own party's candidate. The only group to do it successfully in recent memory is the same deranged base that loves Trump. The second is unlikely; when push comes to shove, most people choose tribalism, which is the same reason Trump is in office now. Additionally, when people register distaste for their party nationally, they usually still like their own representatives, which is why those representatives keep getting elected. Also, voting districts are gerrymandered to hell and back, and it's 2017 and the average voter has the attention span of a gerbil. And midterms traditionally turn out the right more than the left.

Voter distaste for Trump specifically only matters in 2020, or if they specifically toss out GOP congresscritters because of it AND it's clear that's the reason why. Single issues are notoriously poorly communicated electorally, there are too many confounding factors. Maybe they voted out Bill Cassidy because of Trump! Or maybe they didn't like his position on healthcare. Or farm subsidies. Or the state bird.

But they might not toss them out anyway. Crucially, they don't have to like their representative. They just have to hate the alternative more. That's why Trump is in office: a lot of people fucking hated Hillary Clinton.

This was a very long post and I wrote it on a phone. I apologize if I repeated myself or was otherwise incoherent. The upshot: you just cannot assume a. public opinion will be what a sane person would expect, b. it will matter in time to not ruin the country a good bit more, or c. it will have any actual electoral consequences for Republicans anyway.

Edit: That said, prominent Republicans are consistently making noise about this. Perhaps they will rediscover a shred of decency after all. But I wouldn't put money on it.

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

 

Alexander, Capito, Collins, Heller, McCain, Murkowski, and Portman.

The two names that really strike out are McCain (who seems to be determined just to anger everybody I guess) and Lamar Alexander; who I'm truly shocked to see. I think of him as a McConnell ally who always votes with leadership and yet here he is.

 

Way back in 2000 my dear Republican father was a supporter of Lamar Alexander for President and was very disappointed when Bush II was nominated. He thought Alexander had more integrity than most of the other candidates. I'd like to think this shows my father was right.

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

For that to mean negative outcomes for them, their constituents have to vote for either a primary challenger or a Democrat.

or just stay home, though admittedly that is far less of a problem for republicans. worth noting though, as it seems to be the only ray of hope

[The Anti-Targ]

It's funny how a lot of strategising in democracy is about how to convince people not to vote, or hoping that they won't vote or feeling safe in the knowledge that they don't vote. But come every election, every politician puts on their second face and tells "everyone" to go out and vote, hoping like hell that only his/her likely supporters are listening.

[LongRider]

Can I just say, this is some offensive shit.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Can I just say, this is some offensive shit.

 

To be fair, it says so right on our money.

[LongRider]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be fair, it says so right on our money.

No, it says in god we trust, not that we worship god.  bit of difference, plus a dollar bill is not  the POTUS.

big diff

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

No, it says in god we trust, not that we worship god.  bit of difference, plus a dollar bill is not  the POTUS.

big diff

We worship money is my main point.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

We worship money is my main point.

Speak for yourself, I'm bringing forward a repulsive thought that was put out in a repulsive inappropriate way.

[DMC]

Site seems to be working better now...

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Let's see: Trump has

• not done fuck all about the wall
• ramped up in Afghanistan
• cozied up to Russia
• backed off of China
• failed against North Korea
• continued to bring in people supporting Wall Street
• happily threatened to take away medical care that he stated he would preserve

BTW, these are mostly things Trump has failed to do.  I agree this will be part of why his base turnout will be depressed in the midterms - from lack of action.  Further, you seem to be missing the crux of my argument - it's not that his base is going to abandon him en masse, it's that everyone else (the other 60 to 65% of the country) is going to be pissed and mobilized against him, with no hope of changing.

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

I really think you are still acting as though the rules of 90s/00s politics still apply, and they clearly do not.

First, yes, while Trump may transcend presidential norms, I think it's giving him far too much credit to say he has radically altered the basic way in which politics work.  It's also pretty naive to think the level of polarization was much different in the 00s, or even the 90s.  Second, for someone that says the old rules don't apply, you're still reiterating a lot of them, e.g.:

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

Additionally, when people register distaste for their party nationally, they usually still like their own representatives, which is why those representatives keep getting elected.

This is, basically, what's known as Fenno's Paradox, which he outlined in his seminal work Home Style (1978).

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

Crucially, they don't have to like their representative. They just have to hate the alternative more.

This is what is being referred to by pundits and Abramowitz as negative partisanship.  This is derived from Iyengar's theory on affective polarization, which essentially states our divisions are driven by hating the other side, not by any major ideological schisms.

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

Presidential approval ratings mean jack shit for Republican electoral prospects unless voters decide they do, and Republicans still like Trump.

Except, the correlation between presidential approval and the incumbent party's electoral prospects has been, like Fenno's paradox, established since the 1970s.  More recent work argues the level of punishment/reward that is meted out to a president's co-partisan is dependent upon their support tor the president (albeit measured in support for legislative initiatives, not, ya know, preventing him from firing a special prosecutor, which would be a tough sample to find).

It seems you're under the impression if Trump fires Mueller I think the Republicans will impeach him.  Oh Lordy no.  My point is if he does find a way to fire Mueller, he will seal his party's fate in the midterms, and his own come 2020.  Which is why they (and by "they" we're really only talking three GOP Senators here) will block him from appointing an AG that would do so.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Speak for yourself, I'm bringing forward a repulsive thought that was put out in a repulsive inappropriate way.

Me too? Kinda? 

[DMC]

So calling the new thing "skinny" repeal (when it should just be called "the last gasp of a desperate turtle") has garnered some amusement.  Mike Lee is now apparently ok objectifying healthcare:

Quote

A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said it “depends how skinny it is” when asked whether Lee would support the bill.

Is this how he treats women?

[Fragile Bird]

Holy smokes, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief asking that the courts declare that civil rights protections do not apply to sexual orientation, so that LGBTQ people are not protected?

Your country is so screwed....

[Fez]

In a normal world, this would launch a huge investigation.

Quote

Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to express displeasure with Murkowski's vote. By that afternoon, each of Alaska's two Republican senators had received a phone call from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke letting them know the vote had put Alaska's future with the administration in jeopardy.

 

In other health care news, the skinny repeal idea may also be screwed.

If true, McConnell either needs to start adding more provisions that he's never been able to get 50 votes for, or needs to convince 50 members to start changing a lot senate rules, or finally gives up.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

If true, McConnell either needs to start adding more provisions that he's never been able to get 50 votes for, or needs to convince 50 members to start changing a lot senate rules, or finally gives up.

The more I think about this, I think the entire point is to just keep the thing alive and hope something passes. So he'll make a new plan, likely. I just can't see skinny repeal working for them as an actual outcome. The branding alone is horrible. Not only would their base be upset at how little they got, but it'd have this hilarious name that really underlined how little they got. Plus, they'd likely mess up some people's insurance and get blamed for that.

This whole thing could be dead Friday, hopefully. I don't see how they keep this alive longer, if they want to actually turn to tax reform, which they are talking about.

 

 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

This whole thing could be dead Friday, hopefully. I don't see how they keep this alive longer, if they want to actually turn to tax reform, which they are talking about.

Possibly. They are starting to run short on time. There's a hard deadline of Sept. 30 for repeal, which is when the current reconciliation instructions expire. There's also next fiscal year, but there's two problems there 1) Republicans want to use those ones for tax reform and 2) Unless they pass a budget blueprint (the actual appropriations bills don't count) they don't get to use reconciliation again anyway.

And there's a lot of other things that need get done before Sept. 30, including funding for next fiscal year, raising the debt ceiling, and renewing various longstanding pieces of legislation that aren't permanent law. There's also a bunch of Trump judicial nominations Republicans want to confirm, and even though Democrats can't block them anymore they can make each nomination take 20-30 Senate hours (I forget which), which is usually around 3 days. And the Senate can't do anything else on the floor during that time. 

[OldGimletEye]

Prepare to bend the knee to your “libertarian” feudal overlords. GOT Real World Edition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/bosses-want-capitalism-for-themselves-and-feudalism-for-their-workers/

Quote

If some employers had their way, you would have to pledge eternal fealty to them just to get a paycheck.

You would bend the knee, bow your head, and swear to serve them faithfully, now and forever, even if someone else tried to hire you away for more money. And in return for this loyalty, you of course would get none. Your company could fire you whenever it wanted and wouldn't have to take care of you when you got old. If you were really lucky, it might, just might, give you a small 401(k) match. In other words, it'd be capitalism for bosses, and feudalism for workers.

..............................................................

Republican Party says, “Damn we slick”.

Sanders then says, “Uh, yeah, LOL not so much.”

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/26/16048136/bernie-sanders-daines-single-payer

Quote

Bernie Sanders is going to do his more moderate colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus a big favor, in pursuit of the larger goal of trying to defeat Republican efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act.

The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday night that Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) is planning to propose an amendment during debate this week to create a single-payer health care system.

.................................

The Republican Party: Complains about violence from the left.

Then does:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/24/16021532/blake-farenthold-texas-duel-susan-collins-over-health-care

Quote

Last week, the Republican-proposed Obamacare repeal-and-delay bill was doomed when three GOP women senators, all of whom had initially been left out of the health care bill discussions, came forward saying they would not vote to pass it. Now one GOP representative is blaming the ongoing health care confusion on these women senators — and saying that “if it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr style.”

.......................................

Today in: Good For Her

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/16026076/susan-collins-duel-blake-farenthold

Quote

In a hot mic moment, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the senators who opposes the Senate health care bill because it would lead to big losses in insurance coverage, was very blunt in her thoughts about Farenthold.

I'd say if you look like Jabba The Hutt and you go around threatening people, you deserve a bit of snark.

....................................

Remember when conservatives cut taxes back in the 1980s and it was mornin’ in America?

Yeah, me neither.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-solve-nothing-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2017-07

Quote

It won’t, because it never has. When President Ronald Reagan tried it in the 1980s, he claimed that tax revenues would rise. Instead, growth slowed, tax revenues fell, and workers suffered. The big winners in relative terms were corporations and the rich, who benefited from dramatically reduced tax rates.

 

Quote

Small countries are the sole exception, because they can pursue beggar-thy-neighbor policies aimed at poaching corporations from their neighbors. But global growth is largely unchanged – the distributive effects actually impede it slightly – as one gains at the expense of the other. (And this assumes that the other does not respond and fuel a race to the bottom.)

Right now there is a lot of talk about better international cooperation on monetary policy and financial stability policy. I’m not sure why capital tax policy can’t be part of the mix.

..........................................................

Yes, the Democratic Party can’t allow the Republican Party take up all the oxygen in the room when it comes to tax policy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/democrats-better-deal-for-workers-leaves-a-tough-question-unanswered/

Quote

Leading Democratic politicians announced their economic agenda for next year's midterm elections on Monday, calling for measures to bring down prices for prescription drugs, control monopolies and help companies pay for training for their workers.

The documents distributed to reporters, however, mentioned taxes only in passing, glossing over what could be a crucial aspect of any Democratic platform in the coming years. 

 

Quote

Beyond the legal issues, a more serious objection to taxes on capital is that they slow down the economy by discouraging saving and investment. Overcoming that common point of view could be a challenge for left-leaning thinkers who want a change in the way Democrats talk about the issue.

Uh maybe. For those in the top 1% its really hard to imagine that they will change their consumption patterns all that much, in response to capital tax rates. And even if higher capital taxes slow down growth a bit, it doesn’t follow necessarily that is a negative welfare loss.

Also, whatever the final corporate tax rate is, it may depend on the strength of labor power. There is a literature out there that suggest labor and capital often fight over dividing up rents. If labor is able to get a bigger portion of the rents, then maybe capital taxes could be a bit lower.

Anyway, the Democratic Party has a lot to think about on this matter.

...................................

Gasp!!! Heaven forbid people lose faith in Orange “Bidness Guy” Swamp Thing and “The Party Of Bidness”!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/in-major-shift-americans-now-disapprove-of-trump-on-the-economy/

Quote

President Trump likes to dismiss polls, but there's one number that has always been pretty spot on about Trump: Whether voters trust him to grow the economy.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, no matter how low his overall poll numbers dived, voters would still give Trump really high marks on the economy. He typically polled 50 percent — or better — when voters were asked if they “trust” Trump to “do a better job” on the economy in the Fox News and CNN polls.

 

[LongRider]

Quote

Posted by OldGimletEye:

Prepare to bend the knee to your “libertarian” feudal overlords. GOT Real World Edition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/bosses-want-capitalism-for-themselves-and-feudalism-for-their-workers/

Quote

If some employers had their way, you would have to pledge eternal fealty to them just to get a paycheck.

You would bend the knee, bow your head, and swear to serve them faithfully, now and forever, even if someone else tried to hire you away for more money. And in return for this loyalty, you of course would get none. Your company could fire you whenever it wanted and wouldn't have to take care of you when you got old. If you were really lucky, it might, just might, give you a small 401(k) match. In other words, it'd be capitalism for bosses, and feudalism for workers.

..............................................................

 

I currently live in a state I don't like working a job I don't like but won't leave because of the strong union and the fact the state, California, is one of the strongest Blue states in the US.  As a person over 60 who came close to destitution in 2011 because of Nevada's 'right to work' and 'at will' laws, I left the state I love because of their fucked up labor laws.  I've read of the issue in this article that OGE  posted and it's horrendous.  

To see these type of laws come into effect without good unions to protect workers really is a crime and will devastate so many people and families.  But hey!  It's good for bidness, right?

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

In a normal world, this would launch a huge investigation.

This is an insane story. I hope Murkowski stays strong and doesn't give in to being strong armed. It's amazing that these people can get away with playing politics with American lives. 

Also, I hate today's media with a passion. All this focus on Scaramucci accussing Preibus of leaking a publicly available disclosure form when they should be spending their time on the story above and healthcare. No one gives a fuck about Scaramucci.