Jump to content

The Great Unwashed

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Great Unwashed

  • Rank
    Lich-King of Oklahoma
  • Birthday 07/02/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Reading, tabletop gaming, quality beers.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,275 profile views
  1. Hahaha...that's what I get for posting at work! Cicely Strong instead of Cicely Tyson. <Checking work analysis doc for references to SNL, the 2020 Democratic primary or recommendations for which Mieville book to start off reading...>
  2. Oooh... way more fun anyway. So we have Larry David for Sanders, Kate McKinnon for Warren, and Jason Sudeikis coming back to play Biden. Then I think Maya Rudolph, as mentioned, could be good for Harris, or maybe Leslie Jones, depending on the direction they go in spoofing her. Cicely Tyson for Tulsi Gabbard or Klobuchar and Kenan Thompson for Booker. Maybe Mikey Day for O'Rourke? I'm having trouble thinking of someone to play him.
  3. I think the environment is much different now than it was in 2004, and online small donor fundraising has really changed the game. Also, I think that the definition of electability has changed for Democratic voters. And I agree that 2nd tier candidates will collapse after Super Tuesday, but I think the pool of 1st tier candidates is larger than just 2 or 3, and as long as they can keep their fundraising going past Super Tuesday you can't count them out.
  4. I agree with @IheartIheartTesla that Sanders could very well benefit from fragmentation with such a large Democratic primary field, especially if there end up being a large number of well-funded, viable candidates come Iowa caucus time. Sanders has a head-start on all current and potential candidates in that he already has a campaign infrastructure in place in all 50 states, while the others will have to go about building theirs. He's already crushing fundraising numbers, raising $5.9 million in the first 24 hours after his announcement from 225k individual donors. And in a large field, I could easily imagine a scenario where Sanders gains a lot of momentum with wins in Iowa, NH and Nevada, then accepts a close 3rd place finish in South Carolina. After that comes Super Tuesday where I can see his campaign focusing on close 2nd or 3rd place finishes in places like California, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Massachusetts, so as to not fall too far behind in the delegate count, before swinging back to more favorable territory in the Rust Belt, the Midwest and the West. I think most of the top-tier candidates (Harris, Booker, Biden, O'Rourke - if he decides to run, Sanders, probably Klobuchar, and Warren, maybe) will have sufficient campaign funding to continue to Super Tuesday without a win, but after Super Tuesday, the only candidates I could see with the funding to continue their campaign even if they're winless are Sanders, Harris, Biden and maybe Booker and O'Rourke, although since Massachusetts, Texas and California all vote on Super Tuesday, you'd expect O'Rourke to win Texas, Harris win California and Warren win Massachusetts, which would extend all of their campaigns. And I think a larger pool of candidates benefits Sanders the same way a large 2016 Republican field benefitted Trump (with the caveat being that Democrats' proportional allocation of delegates may mitigate the "Trump effect" in large primary fields). The delegate allocation, however, won't much affect the media horse-race narrative of wins. What I would really like to see this time around is, after everyone declares and before debates start, the candidates all put out some kind of statement saying that despite whoever wins, the others pledge to offer their full assistance to the winner to defeat Trump in the general.
  5. Sanders campaign reporting that it raised $4 million in the first 12 hours since the announcement of his candidacy.
  6. I've actually met the guy in person twice: once at a charity basketball event after his Heisman winning season and once at a bar in OKC where he called next on the pool table I was playing on, and where he proceeded to kick my ass six ways from Sunday, after he retired. Probably the nicest guy you could ever meet. I'd vote for him.
  7. Another reminder that whenever Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud, they're just projecting.
  8. Ha! I just want to take a second to pat myself on the back for being right about my assertion yesterday that McConnell was forced to back Trump's declaration of emergency because Trump was threatening to veto the bill, 2nd shutdown be damned. Considering also that the vast majority of the funding for the emergency declaration is being diverted from military appropriations, I think that a joint resolution to rescind the declaration will almost definitely pass. In my mind, the only question now will be how many votes it passes by in each chamber, and whether there will be a realistic opportunity to whip enough votes for an override of Trump's veto. I'm thinking probably not, but I can't imagine there are a lot of Republicans in either chamber who are happy about Trump painting them into this corner, and I know a lot of Republican Congresspersons representing districts with military bases who won't be too thrilled with this. An example close to home is Tom Cole, representing Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District, which includes Tinker AFB, and that currently operates and services almost the entirety of the AWACS fleet. It was also recently announced as the base picked to service and maintenance the entire fleets of both the Air Force's next-gen F-21 Raider stealth bomber and its next-gen refueling tanker, the KC-46A Pegasus. Both of these projects were strongly lobbied for by Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Cole, and have necessitated a spur of construction planning to build new facilities to accommodate the new fleets, along with the approximately 3,500 new jobs estimated to be created. This is significant, because it not only affects Washington politicians, but also affects Trump's base, who were counting on new jobs related to military spending. Trump poured gasoline all over his Republican supporters in Washington and just lit a match.
  9. Not to mention that in the showdowns over ACA repeal, tax cuts and the Kavanaugh vote, Republicans had the luxury of holding both chambers of Congress and were facing an historically favorable Senate map in the 2018 elections. Neither of those luxuries apply now.
  10. Democrats already have standing. Republicans in Congress sued Obama in 2015 to block him from re-appropriating funds in order to make payments to insurers under the ACA and they were ruled to have standing. And a veto doesn't end it. It just prolongs the process and ensures it is covered endlessly in the press as Democrats try to override the veto. Plus it fractures an already shaky Republican coalition. Trump doesn't know it yet, but this was a bigger miscalculation on his part than the shutdown.
  11. This is nuts. I've been searching around trying to get an idea of what the whip count will be in the Senate for the upcoming joint resolution. Democrats need 4 votes, assuming that they can keep Manchin in line (which I think they'll be able to on this one - he just won re-election after all). There are at least 5 to 7 vulnerable Republican incumbents in 2020: McSally, Ernst, Perdue (maybe), Collins, Cornyn (maybe), Tillis and Gardner. In addition, there are 2 retiring in 2020: Alexander and Roberts, who are most likely looking more towards concerns about their legacy rather than political concerns; they're also both on the more moderate-ish end of the Republican spectrum. Cornyn has come out pretty strongly against the declaration, but he's leadership so will probably end up backing it. Among others who have come out against the declaration are Collins, Blunt, Thune, and Romney. Thune will be the one doing the whipping, so expect him to oppose the resolution also. Then there is also Murkowski, who leans more moderate-ish. Leaving out Cornyn, Thune and Perdue (because whether he faces a serious threat in 2020 is conditional), that leaves at least 10 Republican Senators who could potentially back the resolution. Then you have Lee and Paul, who are unpredictable, but whose rhetoric tends toward opposing executive overreach. And that's just a quick count on my part...there could be others who come out in favor of the resolution in order to avoid setting a precedent for a Democratic president in the future. McConnell announced the emergency declaration before the White House did, which means he was giving Republicans as much advance notice as possible...which means that he agreed to back an emergency declaration without knowing whether he could whip enough opposition to defeat the House's resolution...which means that Trump basically told McConnell that he'd refuse to sign the appropriations bill unless McConnell agreed to back the emergency declaration. Holy shit! This is some prime-time political theater!
  12. Shit just got interesting. If Trump actually ends up doing this, House Dems will pass a joint resolution rescinding the state of emergency, which will then be sent to the Senate. This joint resolution is privileged; old Myrtle the Turtle cannot block it. So he's saying he will be whipping Republicans for a vote against the joint resolution. It is by no means clear if Senate Republicans have enough votes to block the resolution. If it passes both chambers, Trump will have to veto it, sending it back to Congress to see if they can override (they probably can't). But this will be tied up in legal action for years. The main takeaway from this is that is forces Senate Republicans into a corner; whether to vote to uphold an extremely unpopular declaration, which gives precedent for future Democratic presidents to take advantage of, or whether to go against Trump and the base. He basically handed them a bomb and is asking them to blow up Republican divisions in the Senate so that he can save face.
  13. I don't see the calculus on this; the Obama administration swept it under the rug after they presented the intelligence to McConnell and he told them to get fucked. Sweeping this under the rug went against the partisan interests of the Obama administration; however, it would benefit the partisan interests of Republicans and Burr.
  14. The Great Unwashed

    US Politics: The Accountability Problem

    Kelly is a great recruit for the Democratic primary. Former aviator and astronaut, which kind of takes some of the wind out of McSally's sails on that front. Husband to Gabby Giffords, so he has some name recognition statewide already. And expect him to run a centristy-type campaign like Sinema did, although he probably won't find it as difficult since he most likely doesn't have very liberal on-the-record comments, unlike Sinema. This is a good get for Dems imo.