U.S. Politics: Who's Cohen Down?

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I generally don't trust Emerson due to their insistence on remaining a landline-only polling firm. But in this case, with the early voter average age being 65 right now (and that's actually down from where it was a few weeks ago), it may not be as much of an issue.

I suspect Lesko will win fairly comfortably, but it's not a shoe-in. National Republican groups have dumped over a $1 million into the race in recent weeks, so they seem to be at least a little nervous (and Tipireni has out-raised Lesko directly). Their main motivation may just be residual concerns from Conor Lamb winning and not anything specific about what's happening on the ground here; but maybe not.

If Lesko lost it would be a straight up disaster.  This district is not only +20 Republican, it also has no history of ever being close.  A loss there would probably convince some Republicans who have already declared for reelection that maybe they should be spending time with their family.

I expect a Lesko win in the high single digits, which is still probably a good enough showing for the Democrats to win the Arizona Senate seat six months from now. 

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

I generally don't trust Emerson due to their insistence on remaining a landline-only polling firm.

FWIW, Emerson has generally added an online component to their polling, and has in this case:

Quote

Methodology: The AZ USC 8th district Emerson College ePoll was conducted April 12-15 2018 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of only likely registered voters, n=400, with a Credibility Interval (similar to margin of error) of +/- 5.2 percentage points. The data was weighted by party affiliation, gender, age, ethnicity and mode based on a registered voter model. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only and an online panel provided by Survey Sampling International (SSI).

 

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

National Republican groups have dumped over a $1 million into the race in recent weeks, so they seem to be at least a little nervous (and Tipireni has out-raised Lesko directly).

I haven't seen anything saying they've spent over $1 million, but yeah they've invested while the DNC/DCCC has not.  Guess we should get used to that.  Here's the best information I can quickly find on the spending race:

Quote

Overall, Tipirneni raised $434,000 from all sources between Feb. 8 and April 4. Lesko raised $367,000 from all sources in the same period. Tipirneni ended the period with $125,000 on hand compared to $54,000 for Lesko.

Republican groups, who have seen recent GOP losses in Alabama and rural Pennsylvania, have kicked in about $700,000 in outside spending to help boost Lesko in the conservative-leaning district. Outside Democratic groups have largely ignored the race, but a new group headed by activist Ady Barkan plans to spend "six figures" in the race's closing days.

Anyway, yeah, I agree with both you and Maith - if Tipirneni simply keeps it in the single digits that's a pretty significant victory.  But, ya never know, even with old people.  Anecdotal, but my grandparents live in Lake Havasu, and even that community doesn't sound happy.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, yeah, I agree with both you and Maith - if Tipirneni simply keeps it in the single digits that's a pretty significant victory.  But, ya never know, even with old people.  Anecdotal, but my grandparents live in Lake Havasu, and even that community doesn't sound happy.

I wish the Democrats would spend 200k on voter outreach and registration in that district.  It probably would only make a small difference for Tipirneni, but it lays the groundwork for the must-win Senate battle in November.  Arizona only has nine congressional districts, it's not like they can afford to write off AZ-8.

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Giving hooligans dressed in cheap grocery store costumes candy on demand is just another form of liberal entitlements that put this country deep into debt.  

Well, it is socialism and black magic all at once. Those kids should be in church or Paul Ryan's workhouse.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I wish the Democrats would spend 200k on voter outreach and registration in that district.  It probably would only make a small difference for Tipirneni, but it lays the groundwork for the must-win Senate battle in November.  Arizona only has nine congressional districts, it's not like they can afford to write off AZ-8.

I agree, but the good news is in terms of specific candidates, Democratic fundraising is going well in Arizona - and Sinema in particular doesn't look like she needs any help.

[Maithanet]

Charlie Dent isn't just foregoing the 2018 reelection, he's resigning.
 

Quote

 

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a frequent critic of President Trump and a leader of the GOP’s moderate bloc in the House, said Tuesday that he will resign from Congress within weeks. His decision could set up a costly special election if the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania orders one.

Dent had already announced his retirement from Congress in September...

His decision to resign in the coming weeks could set up a competitive and costly special election depending on the wishes of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat.

Pennsylvania election law requires the governor to issue a writ of election within 10 days of a vacancy, with an election to follow “not less than sixty days” later. While the election could be held during “the next ensuing primary or municipal election,” Pennsylvania’s primary will be held May 15 — before any special election could be called. It is not clear whether Wolf would schedule an election so soon before the November midterms bring a full-term replacement for Dent.

 

If Dent retires May 1, then the earliest the election could be held would be sometime in July.  I gotta say, having a special election in July to fill a seat that is up for election in November just seems wasteful.  And I can even see an argument that having a special election could backfire for Democrats.  This special election will be held on the old PA district map, which is definitely Republican leaning (although not as much as PA-18 was).  If a good Republican candidate is able to win a special election on the old map it would boost his/her popularity for a race in November on the much harder district map.

Really, I think leaving the district vacant is the prudent thing to do. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

These will probanly be few, so enjoy. 

Quote

Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's selection last year for the Supreme Court, cast the deciding vote in a decision released Tuesday that sided with an immigrant fighting his deportation.

 

Gorsuch ruled with the court's four liberal justices in favor of the immigrant, James Garcia Dimaya, who argued that his convictions on two burglary charges did not represent a violent crime.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/383512-supreme-court-invalidates-law-requiring-the-deportation-of

It does involve immigration and deportation so we may even get a tweet of betrayal. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I gotta say, having a special election in July to fill a seat that is up for election in November just seems wasteful.

Indeed, regardless of the politics.

[Martell Spy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-lawyer-reveals-sketch-of-man-who-allegedly-threatened-her?ref=home

Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer Reveals Sketch of Man Who Allegedly Threatened Her

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-lawyer-reveals-sketch-of-man-who-allegedly-threatened-her?ref=home

Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer Reveals Sketch of Man Who Allegedly Threatened Her

Honestly, that kind of looks like, well, an older version of me…

[Fez]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Indeed, regardless of the politics.

I can think of at least one exception, if control of the House for the rest of the session could flip, it'd worth having the special election. Obviously that's not the case here, so yeah, it just seems wasteful.

In other news,

It's not the biggest decision, but it is noteworthy because 1) Its proof that Gorsch won't reflexively vote the conservative position on EVERY case (just like there's been a handful of times Alito or Thomas have gone 5-4 with the liberals), and 2) Because it's an immigration-related ruling, it's certain to piss off Trump if he hears about it; and that's just fun.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

 

It's not the biggest decision, but it is noteworthy because 1) Its proof that Gorsch won't reflexively vote the conservative position on EVERY case (just like there's been a handful of times Alito or Thomas have gone 5-4 with the liberals), and 2) Because it's an immigration-related ruling, it's certain to piss off Trump if he hears about it; and that's just fun.

His clerk hiring is apparently decent and interesting as well.  He seems to be looking outside the "white male graduates of Harvard and Yale" pool.  That is worth something.  I mean, maybe not much at the end of the day, but from a court watching perspective it is interesting.

[Durckad]

How long until Trump declares Gorsuch to be the "worst supreme court justice!" and "not a very smart man!" amongst other Twittered epithets?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

I can think of at least one exception, if control of the House for the rest of the session could flip, it'd worth having the special election. Obviously that's not the case here, so yeah, it just seems wasteful.

In other news,

It's not the biggest decision, but it is noteworthy because 1) Its proof that Gorsch won't reflexively vote the conservative position on EVERY case (just like there's been a handful of times Alito or Thomas have gone 5-4 with the liberals), and 2) Because it's an immigration-related ruling, it's certain to piss off Trump if he hears about it; and that's just fun.

I understand the feeling, and I experienced it to some extent as well, but that represents one of my great fears of the Trump era: How long will the toxicity last? Is this the new normal for the foreseeable future? Will politics and governance be completely driven by hate and animosity? Is there a viable path to undo all of this? I fear there may not be one, which means chaos will reign for a very long time.

[Fez]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I understand the feeling, and I experienced it to some extent as well, but that represents one of my great fears of the Trump era: How long will the toxicity last? Is this the new normal for the foreseeable future? Will politics and governance be completely driven by hate and animosity? Is there a viable path to undo all of this? I fear there may not be one, which means chaos will reign for a very long time.

I think it's very difficult to predict the future, and also that people have a habit of thinking that the current political situation is both 1) new and 2) going to last forever. In this case, it sort of is new; polarization has been getting worse for a long time, but we're at level not seen in a hundred years. But I don't think it's going to last forever (but it will last for as long as Trump is President).

If there's a non-remarkable President who oversees an era of steady economic growth and no wars, that will probably cut down on toxicity. (I think things improve under a President Martin O'Malley)

If there's a black swan event that causes a rally-around-the-flag effect that, could cut down toxicity. (One of Bush's biggest failures was squandering the national goodwill he had post-9/11)

If there's a political realignment, that could cut down on toxicity. (Basically, if it's a single very important issue causing people to flip, it means that a lot of people would then have a lot of people on the other side that they know and agree with on other issues)

If there's a change in technology or media consumption, that can cut down toxicity. (e.g. Facebook losing marketshare to some other social media platform where people cannot easily convey political beliefs or argue)

And so on. Of course, maybe none of those ever happen. But they could. Or maybe we just need to wait for everyone currently over age 35 to die; based on present trends there will still be toxicity, but Democrats would have something like an 75%-25% majority so it wouldn't matter as much.

[Jace, Extat]

This dirtbag is selling Mar-A-Lago as the 'Southern White House' right next to the Japanese PM

[Fragile Bird]

24 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

This dirtbag is selling Mar-A-Lago as the 'Southern White House' right next to the Japanese PM

So don't you dare say one effing word about the time he spends there, you snowflake, you.

[Fragile Bird]

I have to admit, I'm impressed.

Starbucks will shut down more than 8,000 US locations on May 29th to give 175,000 employees a day of racial bias training.

So in the next 40 days they have to write (and they probably have part of it now, but not a complete module) a training module on racial bias, hire the trainers (cuz they don't have 8,000 on staff), train the trainers, and then roll out the training in a coordinated fashion on the 29th. 

Well done. They should do it in Canada.

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have to admit, I'm impressed.

Starbucks will shut down more than 8,000 US locations on May 29th to give 175,000 employees a day of racial bias training.

So in the next 40 days they have to write (and they probably have part of it now, but not a complete module) a training module on racial bias, hire the trainers (cuz they don't have 8,000 on staff), train the trainers, and then roll out the training in a coordinated fashion on the 29th. 

Well done. They should do it in Canada.

I just felt my Ex's Capitalism boner through the sheets of time.

[Martell Spy]

57 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think it's very difficult to predict the future, and also that people have a habit of thinking that the current political situation is both 1) new and 2) going to last forever. In this case, it sort of is new; polarization has been getting worse for a long time, but we're at level not seen in a hundred years. But I don't think it's going to last forever (but it will last for as long as Trump is President).

If there's a non-remarkable President who oversees an era of steady economic growth and no wars, that will probably cut down on toxicity. (I think things improve under a President Martin O'Malley)

If there's a black swan event that causes a rally-around-the-flag effect that, could cut down toxicity. (One of Bush's biggest failures was squandering the national goodwill he had post-9/11)

If there's a political realignment, that could cut down on toxicity. (Basically, if it's a single very important issue causing people to flip, it means that a lot of people would then have a lot of people on the other side that they know and agree with on other issues)

If there's a change in technology or media consumption, that can cut down toxicity. (e.g. Facebook losing marketshare to some other social media platform where people cannot easily convey political beliefs or argue)

And so on. Of course, maybe none of those ever happen. But they could. Or maybe we just need to wait for everyone currently over age 35 to die; based on present trends there will still be toxicity, but Democrats would have something like an 75%-25% majority so it wouldn't matter as much.

Can we make that age 45 dying instead?

Bush did not squander it. He used it to win reelection, and shove horrible policies down our throats. Last thing you want is a major terrorist attack and a Republican President on watch. Pretty soon some country music star is singing "Have you forgotten", and the Dems are a bunch of wimpy traitors.