Jump to content

U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

Just now, dmc515 said:

I'm pretty drunk and I don't care to read another 538 article.  Does this support my point or refute it?

It somewhat refutes it - namely, Virginia wasn't particularly heavily gerrymandered, and Republicans held a lot of seats that were likely Democrat anyway. The outlier wasn't the Democrats taking them back this time - it was the Republicans having a supermajority in the first place, and that happened I guess as a response to Obama winning his second term and the DNC doing things like simply not having people run for election in some seats.

Just now, dmc515 said:

I agree with the last part - or at least I hope so.  Feel like FNC here in terms of repeating myself to make something true, but retirements are the key.  As for incumbency being less protective that usual?  Well, sure, that's the nature of a historically unpopular president.  Again, I know you always handwave basic metrics that have been found to consistently predict overall midterm election results, but this is what it's all about.

I didn't handwave the metrics; I simply don't believe them without current data, because so many other things have changed in the political universe that using prior metrics to predict is not as valuable. 

This is a data point that leans towards those being more predictive. So I'm changing my mind. I'm still skeptical that the House is in play simply because it is a VERY large hill to go up, and a lot can happen in a year - including a (theoretically) popular tax bill. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

I don't think gerrymandering is BS.  Rather, I think you've provided it far too much influence than the reality of elections.  This entire board does.  It's clear I'm not going to change that.  So...enjoy?

I think gerrymandering is the biggest predictor of election results after economic status. 

I also think that when you have factors such as social media, a literal propaganda channel that half of the people listen to, voter suppression efforts and another nation-state using its espionage assets to prop up one party (and that party largely ignoring that attack), things may not be as predictive as prior results would warrant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 So I'm changing my mind. I'm still skeptical that the House is in play simply because it is a VERY large hill to go up, and a lot can happen in a year - including a (theoretically) popular tax bill. 

Who is theorizing that this tax bill is likely to be popular? Granted, a lot can happen in a year, but don't you think it's likely going to continue to get worse for the administration and those who support it? Outside of a large domestic terror event or a war, I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The outlier wasn't the Democrats taking them back this time - it was the Republicans having a supermajority in the first place, and that happened I guess as a response to Obama winning his second term and the DNC doing things like simply not having people run for election in some seats.

Well, I wouldn't describe it as an "outlier," but yes.  The GOP held a bunch of seats that were gettable, and the Dems got them.  This is precisely what could happen next year.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't handwave the metrics; I simply don't believe them without current data, because so many other things have changed in the political universe that using prior metrics to predict is not as valuable. 

Ok, but now you have current data.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm still skeptical that the House is in play simply because it is a VERY large hill to go up, and a lot can happen in a year - including a (theoretically) popular tax bill. 

I think skepticism is prudent.  All I'd say is after a year of demonstrative incompetence and bullshit Tweets, can we start with some optimism?

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think gerrymandering is the biggest predictor of election results after economic status.

Well, no, that's wrong.  Partisan lean and presidential approval are better indicators than the level of gerrymandering.  After those two?  Sure.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also think that when you have factors such as social media, a literal propaganda channel that half of the people listen to, voter suppression efforts and another nation-state using its espionage assets to prop up one party (and that party largely ignoring that attack), things may not be as predictive as prior results would warrant. 

I agree - to an extent.  As long as Trump sits in the thirties, history says his party is fucked.  And that will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Who is theorizing that this tax bill is likely to be popular? Granted, a lot can happen in a year, but don't you think it's likely going to continue to get worse for the administration and those who support it? Outside of a large domestic terror event or a war, I suppose. 

A lot of people think that the tax bill getting passed and being able to do SOMETHING will be popular, even if the details are not as popular. 

As to 'get worse', Trump's approval hasn't really changed in months, good or bad, despite scandal after scandal. Outside of a large terror event, war, or economic downturn I don't see his approval changing at all one way or another. And that includes more indictments in the Russia investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, beyond all of that, the reason that I'm deeply pessimistic is that Trump has shown there is virtually no will whatsoever from his own party in enforcing norms, ethics, or anything remotely close to a reasonable political discourse. And so far there has been not a lot of pushback from their own party on this either, largely (I think) because their news organizations ignore it completely. 

To me, this signals the end of the most important check that the US has on its own political system. As I said in another thread, I wonder if this check was already dead when Clinton legally perjured himself and was not convicted basically on partisan lines. When the POTUS can break the law, can break ethical rules, can violate the constitution repeatedly and not be punished for it or held in check, that's basically it. 

Because right now, the only reason things aren't worse is because Trump is fairly incompetent. The GOP is looking at this and thinking about, well, what if we have Koch as Vice President? Why not? What will stop us from having a more popular, more easily corrupted billionaire POTUS up there? It's not like we'll worry about prosecuting ethic issues or emoluments clauses, and even if they get impeached it'll be blocked in the Senate - and that's a BIG if. 

I see no sign that this is incorrect. I see no sign that the Republican base will choose to act to correct this. I see no sign of Fox and Breitbart changing. Hence, my get the fuck out moment if the gerrymandering is allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's incorrect.

I see no sign that you're particularly correct; simply belligerent and looking for a fight when you're drunk. 

But let's go through it.

The Republicans control the House and Senate. How many hearings have there been on emoluments? How many on any ethical violations by the Trump administration? How many probes into finances of admin members? How many releases of tax records? 

Is Mueller protected by actual law? Are any Republicans running for office opposing Trump in any way? Are any Republicans calling for impeachment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction, however worthless it may be:

If the republicans somehow manage to pass anything resembling their current 'screw the middle class' 'tax reform' package, then they loose big come 2018 - including many seats deemed 'safe.'  This is assuming some republican congressmen are not (literally) lynched first. 

The outrage is that deep, and the republicans in congress appear to be that clueless.

Intermediate run - two or three more presidential elections at most, the current republican/conservative gerrymandering scheme fails anyhow, because their core is imploding - literally dying off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 

Well, no, that's wrong.  Partisan lean and presidential approval are better indicators than the level of gerrymandering.  After those two?  Sure.

 

Um gerrymandering is the process by which an electoral victor constructs the partisan lean of a district.

so you are agreeing with kal, you’re just using obfuscatory terminology that forces you to think a downstream effect is a principle cause. You just got your cause and effect mixed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Um gerrymandering is the process by which an electoral victor constructs the partisan lean of a district.

so you are agreeing with kal, you’re just using obfuscatory terminology that forces you to think a downstream effect is a principle cause. You just got your cause and effect mixed up.

There's a difference between the partisan lean of a district and its prospective gerrymandering.  They aren't the same thing.  A district can have a partisan lean without any gerrymandering.  To explain it, let's say conceptually most of Kansas is Republican.  This is true other than Topeka and KC.  So, you have most of the the state that leans a certain way - at least 90 percent geographically is red.  Deep red.  That's not gerrymandering, that's just how most of Kansas "leans."  Does that make sense? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As to my woe is me BS - it has a lot to do with gerrymandering which I still believe (as do Republicans) is more important to their success than general election...

 

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

There's a difference between the partisan lean of a district and its prospective gerrymandering.  They aren't the same thing.  A district can have a partisan lean without any gerrymandering...

 

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

This is absolutely true, if I understand you correctly.  The Dems will need to win the aggregate House vote by about 6 to 9 percent in order to retake the majority.  However, as we just saw, state legislatures can potentially change between now and census time.  Let's remember that!

To respond to all at once, gerrymandering isn't the only factor, but the purpose of representative districts is to be representative of the population at large.

It's true that some areas will have demographics favouring a particular political group. That's entirely the purpose of the electorate model, where a geographic area is divided up into small chunks, with each electing a representative to be that area's voice in legislative matters.

There are some factors that are meant to be within this system, and partisan lean is one of them. It's hoped that a variety of parties will be in a legislative body because the population as a whole is varied.

Gerrymandering undermines this process by removing the ability for areas to be accurately representative. Geographic regions that are politically divided lose their ability to change their representative because they live across the road from a competitive district while being in a very safe one themselves.

As dmc515 says, a 6 to 9% victory to the Democrats would do it... but that's a ridiculous expectation. A de-facto two party system isn't unusual in politics anywhere in the world, but in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions a 6 to 9% victory is a crushing landslide victory that would just about leave one party with a super-majority. That sort of margin is nearly unthinkable in Australia, for instance, and has only ever happened once in our entire history (and it translated into such an enormous parliamentary majority that the ruling Coalition government no longer required its smaller partners to remain in power, they'd won by so much).

Virginia's districts were not as bad as other states, where the Democrats must also overcome ridiculous voting margins to flip the state houses in order to retake control.

There simply aren't enough competitive districts in the USA for it to function effectively. It shouldn't take a ridiculous margin to flip the house.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats are now ~ +8-10 in a generic House ballot, which is why I think they will make substantial gains in 2018. However, there is still a fair bit of uncertainty to predict whether they will take back the House (as there should be, its still a year away).

I definitely feel better about their chances now though. But assuming say a R +5-10 in the House, why would they be able to pass any more bills than the current clowns have been able to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing quote in the tax press from a practitioner in the international tax space about the proposals in the bill:

Quote
“The entire bill strikes me as something of a work in process. It was slapped together quickly by people who didn't fully understand the rules and my sense is that there are going to be enough holes in this scheme to drive a truck through,” (H. David Rosenbloom)

My own view is that the holes are ocean liner big, not truck big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Amazing quote in the tax press from a practitioner in the international tax space about the proposals in the bill:

My own view is that the holes are ocean liner big, not truck big.

One of the things I’ve read about the bill that’s deeply offensive is that it’s going to make it easier for tax evasion to happen. Given what we’ve learned from the Panama and Paradise Papers, I don’t know how any decent law maker can allow that to happen. Also, why are we giving these tax cheats a tax break? I say screw them and tell them to repatriate their money at a 50% tax rate or go to jail and we’ll repatriate all of it. There’s over $2.5T being stashed overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

One of the things I’ve read about the bill that’s deeply offensive is that it’s going to make it easier for tax evasion to happen. Given what we’ve learned from the Panama and Paradise Papers, I don’t know how any decent law maker can allow that to happen. Also, why are we giving these tax cheats a tax break? I say screw them and tell them to repatriate their money at a 50% tax rate or go to jail and we’ll repatriate all of it. There’s over $2.5T being stashed overseas.

And the worst part about it is that the complexity is mind-numbing, and there's a lot of white space, so taxpayers who are trying to be compliant may well run into trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And the worst part about it is that the complexity is mind-numbing, and there's a lot of white space, so taxpayers who are trying to be compliant may well run into trouble.

Agreed. I have a lot of experience reading complex legislation and then explaining it to constituents and this thing reads like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Another thing that makes no sense about it is that the tax cuts for corporations and the wealth seem to be permanent for the most part while other tax cuts have an end date. That’s also something that there’s no way to justify.

But back to my previous point, why is it legal to stash money overseas? And why does our tax system reward it? It seems to me that this type of behavior should be illegal and/or taxed to the point where no one would ever consider doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan thinks he can do a deal with Trump to get what he wants and control Trump in some manner, and not get burned in the process or live to regret his decision. Well, I think he's wrong, and not that I really care, about his political fate, but it will be interesting to see if little old Paul's fingers get burned when he plays with matches and a can of gasoline. Doubt that will wake him up though, as he'll just keep livin' in Ayn Rand novel.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wednesdays-mini-report-11817-0

Quote

I expected Ryan to say the GOP has some diversity of thought, and there’s room in the tent for Republicans of various ideological persuasions, but as the Washington Post noted, the Speaker went in a different direction.

“We already made that choice,” he said. “We’re with Trump.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. I have a lot of experience reading complex legislation and then explaining it to constituents and this thing reads like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Another thing that makes no sense about it is that the tax cuts for corporations and the wealth seem to be permanent for the most part while other tax cuts have an end date. That’s also something that there’s no way to justify.

But back to my previous point, why is it legal to stash money overseas? And why does our tax system reward it? It seems to me that this type of behavior should be illegal and/or taxed to the point where no one would ever consider doing it.

Mind you, most of the Code is a giant jig saw puzzle, but this is worse than usual.  I agree that the policy incentives here are FUBAR.  The thing that makes me the stabbiest is honestly the estate tax repeal.  Fine, repeal it, but you have to repeal the basis step up too.  (Mind you, I would tax recipients, not the estate-the family farm sob story is just ridiculous).  

But what you are really angry about is the idea that it is possible to "permanently reinvest" profits offshore.  Under current law, the "passive foreign investment company" rules and the "controlled foreign corporation" rules do a pretty good job of imposing current tax on folks who own interests in passive activities offshore. The difficulty is US people who own interests in corporations that are actually engaged in business offshore, and also the intersection of the tax rules and the GAAP (nonsensical) rules.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...