u.s. politics: is this purity test covered under my obamacare?

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The main reason Republican Senators aren't ditching the filibuster is because they know that at some point Democrats will control the chamber, and they remember how important the filibuster was in stymieing Obama's agenda.  McConnell has explicitly said as much. 

Seriously this.

Democrats are at a nadir right now (though 2018 is looking pretty good), and Republicans could potentially win in 2018 and even 2020. But there will come a point when Democrats will take power again. They may have to make some painful changes in the party platform (especially if 2018 does go poorly), and will have to deal with varying levels of voter disenfranchisement in some states, but politics are always cyclical and eventually the wheel will turn. Republican senators, especially those that have been around for a couple decades (or at least since pre-Obama), are keenly aware of this.

Trump has autocratic tendencies, and he is both actively and passively undermining trust in US institutions that will have longterm repercussions that we'll need to deal with. But he isn't, and can't, cancel or ignore elections (unless we get in a nuclear war). I could see the country possibly being at that point in a few more decades, if we continue down our current path, but right now there's still far too much institutional support for the foundational tenets of democracy.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Losing by itself won't be enough. It has to be embarrassing. 

Not being able to find the votes to repeal the individual mandate (along with a handful of other measures) is embarrassing, and frustrating to many Trump supporters.  It won't do it alone, but it is an important first step.

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Anyone else think this sudden focus on the Clinton's could be Trump's main undoing when it comes to congressional support?

If Trump actually took any tangible actions to force prosecution of Clinton, yes, this could be an issue.  If he just continues to whine about it in tweets and rallies?  Nah the GOP isn't going to care.

34 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Miller's investigation isn't about going for impeachment, though what he and the jury discover could lead to impeachment process, or the attempt for an impeachment process.  Or am I wrong in thinking these are not the same process, but separate?  That someone else could make a case for impeachment with their own investigations? 

No, you're right.  Only the House can deliver articles of impeachment and only the Senate can convict.  For the most recent comparison, Ken Starr's investigation provided the basis for the House impeaching Clinton, but the latter still had to do it themselves.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If Trump actually took any tangible actions to force prosecution of Clinton, yes, this could be an issue.  If he just continues to whine about it in tweets and rallies?  Nah the GOP isn't going to care.

I mostly agree.  The problem is that blaming Clinton is going to go sour over time.  It already sounds a little stale and the election was just 9 months ago.  The only way to keep Clinton-bashing relevant is if she stays in the news.  The Clinton post-election interviews that came out a month ago definitely helped Trump, but it can't last forever. 

However, if Trump orders someone at DOJ to look into charging Clinton with something, then poof, Clinton is back in the news.  You have Democratic Senators and CNN bloviating about how terrible this is.  You could drag the process out and never actually charge her with anything (or charge her and let it get dismissed, whatever).  Trump's biggest political skill is making sure he has all the right enemies, and his base would eat it up. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

53 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The Grand Jury is being impaneled.  Subpoenas for testimony, documents and other materials are going out for the jury to examine.  This is going to be at least 18 months process toward any verdict for or against indictment.  The amount of destruction that will be wreaked by him and his in those 18 months we may never be able to repair.

Miller's investigation isn't about going for impeachment, though what he and the jury discover could lead to impeachment process, or the attempt for an impeachment process.  Or am I wrong in thinking these are not the same process, but separate?  That someone else could make a case for impeachment with their own investigations? 

He's down to - 33% approval now.  Or, as an African American famously has said: "We always knew one third of the US was racist."

 Outside of what I've read regarding Watergate, I have little working knowledge as to how this process really works. Everything I've read yesterday seems to suggest that the typical strategy is to attack from the bottom up. Tradition would suggest that Mueller will go after guys like Flynn and Manafort first, then build up as pressure is applied to the supporting cast. The hope is that one of these guys will fold and supply the meat that will be used to then attack the primary players. 

[Mexal]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Outside of what I've read regarding Watergate, I have little working knowledge as to how this process really works. Everything I've read yesterday seems to suggest that the typical strategy is to attack from the bottom up. Tradition would suggest that Mueller will go after guys like Flynn and Manafort first, then build up as pressure is applied to the supporting cast. The hope is that one of these guys will fold and supply the meat that will be used to then attack the primary players. 

Yup. It'll take awhile. Trump isn't going to get impeached until the Democrats take control of the House or Mueller is able to issue GJ indictments. For now though, the impaneling of a GJ in DC is an important step in the investigation by issuing subpoenas.

To Zorrel's point, Trump can and will do a lot of damage over the next year and half. Not much we can do about it other then keep calling our Senators and be their spine.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 hours ago, felice said:

That's because reality is currently looking like something out of Mad magazine.

And that is a damn good point. 

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Outside of what I've read regarding Watergate, I have little working knowledge as to how this process really works. Everything I've read yesterday seems to suggest that the typical strategy is to attack from the bottom up. Tradition would suggest that Mueller will go after guys like Flynn and Manafort first, then build up as pressure is applied to the supporting cast. The hope is that one of these guys will fold and supply the meat that will be used to then attack the primary players. 

I agree, although I would call Flynn and Manafort supporting players themselves.  NSA and campaign chair are really important jobs. 

One thing that I've wondered about is, what would be the backlash if Trump issued a broad pardon of say, Manafort and Kushner?  He could give a prepared speech where he said "I've spoken to these men about their involvement.  This is all a witch hunt, and for the sake of the country, I'm going to pardon them so we can all move on." 

You can't get anybody to roll if they know they have a pardon coming. 

I have no doubt that the base would be fine with it, and the Democrats and press would scream bloody murder.  Would Congress tolerate it?  I kinda think they would.  To me it sounds a lot more politically survivable than firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree, although I would call Flynn and Manafort supporting players themselves.  NSA and campaign chair are really important jobs. 

One thing that I've wondered about is, what would be the backlash if Trump issued a broad pardon of say, Manafort and Kushner?  He could give a prepared speech where he said "I've spoken to these men about their involvement.  This is all a witch hunt, and for the sake of the country, I'm going to pardon them so we can all move on." 

You can't get anybody to roll if they know they have a pardon coming. 

I have no doubt that the base would be fine with it, and the Democrats and press would scream bloody murder.  Would Congress tolerate it?  I kinda think they would.  To me it sounds a lot more politically survivable than firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

I think Congress would have issues, especially if it's a broad pardon for Russia related activities during the campaign. But here is the thing. If Trump issues pardons and they're accepted, the people accepting the pardons are admitting guilt. By admitting guilt, they lose their 5th amendment rights. If they are subpoenaed to testify, they have no recourse other then to commit perjury if they want to protect Trump. And if that's the case, they can likely be tried for perjury. I think this is the way it works and if it does, I just don't see this as a winning plan for him.

Now, if he pardons them for EVERYTHING (including tax fraud, money laundering, sex trafficking, etc), it only touches federal crimes. Given they operated in NY, Schneiderman will skin them alive, especially if they are admitting guilt at a federal level by accepting the pardons.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 hours ago, Trebla said:

I find it hysterical that Trump continues to have campaign rallies in red states. It reminds me of the movie "Soap Dish" where Sally Fields plays a soap star that goes to malls so she can run into fans and be adored. Trump should have the words "LOVE ME!" behind him onstage.

It's not as ridiculous as you might think. It shows the party, that he still commands quite a bit of support from the base. And never underestimated the power of images. Him doing rallies in front of his believers being broadcasted on Fox (and unfortunately on CNN) is sending quite a message. Everything's good, MMS are fake news.

3 hours ago, aceluby said:

Anyone else think this sudden focus on the Clinton's could be Trump's main undoing when it comes to congressional support?  Part of Nixon's articles of impeachment were using federal agencies and power to investigate and punish political rivals.  I think this is one of those 'norms' that might not be up for change.  I don't think anyone wants to lose an election and then be investigated because of it.

You still think norms matter in the age of Trump? He and his enabler have thus far defied any norm he liked, without any consequences. Besides, don't underestimate how much the Clintons are hated by the GOP base. Afterall he is a sexual predator, and she enabled him, and their charity foundation is a big fraud (unlike Trump foundation ofc.). Somebody has to elect the members of congress from the deep red districts, that someone is again the base, who believes that Russia thing is a witchhunt or conspiracy (deep state).

55 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

 In just two weeks we have seen all his old hits: "Obama is responsible for everything bad," "Hillary is a criminal," "Ewww LGBT," "Brown people are scary." He has already entered the aging rockstar phase, but as long as these sentiments stir up the frothing cesspool of humanity that is his base, don't expect anything more than mild "tsk tsks" from Republicans

I wouldn't write it off that easily. Don't underestimate the power of images. Him doing rallies in those deep red states in front of a large and enthusiatic crowd sends quite powerful messages imho. First, that he still has support from and control over quite a big chunk of the GOP voting base. So it's an internal message towards members of his own party. If you turn on me, you turn on us (your voting base). Second, him dong rallies in front of a rather large and enthusiastic crowd being broadcasted on Fox and (unfortunately) on CNN itself is a message. Everything's fine, people love me. The Russia thing is a hoax, by the MSM. Don'T believe them. IMO the non-partisan networks would be well advised to not spend that much time on his rallies. Focus on the real news.

47 minutes ago, Fez said:

Democrats are at a nadir right now (though 2018 is looking pretty good), and Republicans could potentially win in 2018 and even 2020. But there will come a point when Democrats will take power again. They may have to make some painful changes in the party platform (especially if 2018 does go poorly), and will have to deal with varying levels of voter disenfranchisement in some states, but politics are always cyclical and eventually the wheel will turn. Republican senators, especially those that have been around for a couple decades (or at least since pre-Obama), are keenly aware of this.

Well, there's still the thing with the unfortunate longevity of SCOTUS appointments. Well, and the longterm effects of gerrymandered districts.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I have no doubt that the base would be fine with it, and the Democrats and press would scream bloody murder.  Would Congress tolerate it?  I kinda think they would.  To me it sounds a lot more politically survivable than firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

I think if he pardoned anybody before Mueller completes his investigation the reaction would be similar to his apparent maneuvering to oust Mueller (which, BTW, has been pretty damn clear and immediate, including not one but two pairs of Senate Judiciary Committee members - Graham/Booker and Tillis/Coons - introducing legislation to protect Mueller).  

If he pardons someone, say, after indictment but before the general trial?  Harder to say, although Bush I did do so with some of the Iran/Contra guys (admittedly this was long after the scandal itself was a big deal).  If he pardons someone after conviction I don't think that'd be a big deal - Bush commuted Libby's sentence and nobody really cared.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Not being able to find the votes to repeal the individual mandate (along with a handful of other measures) is embarrassing, and frustrating to many Trump supporters.  It won't do it alone, but it is an important first step.

True, but it was significantly more embarrassing for McConnell. And like I said, it's going to take more than one occurrence for it to sink in to his base. 

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

If Trump actually took any tangible actions to force prosecution of Clinton, yes, this could be an issue.  If he just continues to whine about it in tweets and rallies?  Nah the GOP isn't going to care.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. If Clinton is nothing more then a rhetorical pinata for Trump, nothing will happen. If he actually tried to jail her, all bets are off. 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I mostly agree.  The problem is that blaming Clinton is going to go sour over time.  It already sounds a little stale and the election was just 9 months ago.  The only way to keep Clinton-bashing relevant is if she stays in the news.  The Clinton post-election interviews that came out a month ago definitely helped Trump, but it can't last forever. 

From an objective viewpoint, you're correct. But that's the wrong viewpoint to be using. You have to see it through the eyes of a die hard Trump supporter. And they still LOVE the Clinton bashing. 

[Week]

32 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I think if he pardoned anybody before Mueller completes his investigation the reaction would be similar to his apparent maneuvering to oust Mueller (which, BTW, has been pretty damn clear and immediate, including not one but two pairs of Senate Judiciary Committee members - Graham/Booker and Tillis/Coons - introducing legislation to protect Mueller).  

If he pardons someone, say, after indictment but before the general trial?  Harder to say, although Bush I did do so with some of the Iran/Contra guys (admittedly this was long after the scandal itself was a big deal).  If he pardons someone after conviction I don't think that'd be a big deal - Bush commuted Libby's sentence and nobody really cared.

I believe there would need to a conviction of a crime before a pardon could be granted. At least that was the justification by the Obama WH for inaction on Snowden -- he could not be pardoned whether they wanted to or not because he had not been convicted of a crime.

eta- smarter and more lawyerly people will correct/expand on my limited knowledge here. Thanks in advance.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

From an objective viewpoint, you're correct. But that's the wrong viewpoint to be using. You have to see it through the eyes of a die hard Trump supporter. And they still LOVE the Clinton bashing. 

Yes, but not every Trump supporter is a die hard.  There are a fair number of Republicans who liked Trump's anti-elite populism enough to vote for him, but aren't a fan of his personality or his incompetence.  If he can't deliver actual wins as President, those people won't stick around forever.  It is already going to be tough to get them motivated to vote in 2018 and 2020.  Without that group, Trump's support falls from high 30s to high 20s, and no amount of gerrymandering will save him then. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

To Zorrel's point, Trump can and will do a lot of damage over the next year and half. Not much we can do about it other then keep calling our Senators and be their spine.

Hate to break it to you dude, but it's a lot worse than that. Trump will do damage for the rest of his life, so long as he's a free man. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hate to break it to you dude, but it's a lot worse than that. Trump will do damage for the rest of his life, so long as he's a free man. 

Well yeah, he's not going to be this wonderful person who goes on to work for the Local Milk People or something. I don't think anyone sees that happening.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 

No, you're right.  Only the House can deliver articles of impeachment and only the Senate can convict.  For the most recent comparison, Ken Starr's investigation provided the basis for the House impeaching Clinton, but the latter still had to do it themselves.

Bill Clinton not resigning, and the Senate refusing to convict an obviously guilty man is one of the biggest mistakes the democrat party has ever made.

First, Gore wins if Clinton resigns, Ford nearly won in 1976 because people by and large liked his presidential leadership even if they vehemently disagreed with his vile pardon of Nixon, Gore could have demonstrated the same, and Gore was never in as bad a position as Ford was. You also take away GWB's most potent attack on democrats, by he no longer gets to natter on about cleaning up the whitehouse.  Senate democrats would have shown that rule of law is more important than party solidarity.

Which of course means that GWB never becomes president, Hillary Clinton never runs for senate, nor president.

After 9/11 republicans refuse to rally behind Gore and nastily turn against him. Gore refuses to engage in a 'war on terror' type of solution that is being eagerly demanded by 24/7 by CNN, the NYT and all the rest of the liberal press. McCain easily defeats Gore in 2004 by pledging to be a war president and attack the terrorists. People love that idea.

McCain's slightly delayed war on terror goes about as badly as GWBs war on terror goes, John Kerry and a young gun from Illinois win on the backs of the great recession 2008, and people celebrate the first black vice-president.

Kerry wins reelection in 2012, people talk about him as a democrat Reagan, and then because Kerry's vice president is black, the entire democrat party leadership vehemently tries to stop him from running. shades of anti-Ginsberg rants, Liberal punditry writes scathing and dismissive diatribes that if Obama actually cares about the issues, he should not run because losing is going to set everything he cares about back decades, and he is destined to lose because he is black.  But stunning the world, Obama wins the presidency in 2016, about as easily as Bush Sr won.

The whole process would have been a mirror of what happened after Nixon.

But Clinton did not resign, and as a result of his hubris democrats lost a pretty easily winnable election in 2000, and ultimately lost and even more easily winnable election in 2016. 

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

I believe there would need to a conviction of a crime before a pardon could be granted. At least that was the justification by the Obama WH for inaction on Snowden -- he could not be pardoned whether they wanted to or not because he had not been convicted of a crime.

eta- smarter and more lawyerly people will correct/expand on my limited knowledge here. Thanks in advance.

No, obviously Nixon was pardoned before anything (although I suppose he was technically indicted as an unnamed co-conspirator).  As I briefly mentioned, former SecDef Casper Weinberger was pardoned by Bush after indictment but before trial.  The president's pardon powers are expansive.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yes, but not every Trump supporter is a die hard.  There are a fair number of Republicans who liked Trump's anti-elite populism enough to vote for him, but aren't a fan of his personality or his incompetence.  If he can't deliver actual wins as President, those people won't stick around forever.  It is already going to be tough to get them motivated to vote in 2018 and 2020.  Without that group, Trump's support falls from high 30s to high 20s, and no amount of gerrymandering will save him then. 

Maybe. I've seen a few polls that find that roughly 25% of the country (or at least those who were polled) strongly approve of Trump and/or his job performance. That's his base and that's his floor. His polling averages are in the high thirties, so the difference is the Republicans that don't love him, but will still stick with him. Those people will, for the most part, still back him regardless of what he does, and only after his defeat will they abandon him. The ones that got his numbers into the mid 40s have already left, and they were most of the people that would ever jump ship.

Hopefully that made sense. It's been a long day.....

[Kalbear]

Here's a good sobering article on why the polling numbers aren't quite as good as Democrats want to believe - namely, Trump's numbers haven't decreased all that much in battleground states.

 

Quote

 

In solid Democratic districts — places where the Democratic House candidate won overwhelmingly in 2016 — Trump approval slipped from an average of 32 percent in February through April to 29 percent in May through July. Likewise, in solid Republican districts, Trump approval fell from 56 percent to 53 percent. Though these are statistically significant declines, they don’t mean much politically, because these districts will practically never be in play.

In the 50 closest congressional districts on the Republican side, though, Trump’s approval rating has held steady at 47 percent. Meanwhile, among the 50 closest districts on the Democratic side, Trump approval seems to have declined from 42 percent to 39 percent (though it’s still too close to call).

 

 

[denstorebog]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's a good sobering article on why the polling numbers aren't quite as good as Democrats want to believe - namely, Trump's numbers haven't decreased all that much in battleground states.

 

 

It's an interesting read, however I always thought that the hope for Democratic overperformance lay in the GTVO efforts, especially in races that aren't in the national spotlight, like SC-05, so that Republican voter don't get all fired up.

The article mentions Ossoff's near-win where he overperformed by 10 points or so, but it doesn't really explain why the race is mentioned. If I follow the article's logic, GA-06 was considered an invulnerable district, and invulnerable districts are more likely to turn sour on Trump, therefore GA-06 was close because it wasn't vulnerable?

Give us a district that isn't considered +20 in Republican favor, but +5, and let's see where turnout gets us.

EDIT: Oh yeah, in any case, this article seems way premature. If Trump can lose 10-15 points in 6 months, including among the most extreme voters, who knows what can happen in another year.