US Politics: Russian Roulette Republican Style

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

They overestimated her appeal to non-Foxbots or at least underestimated how tainted she was by her previous career. She might have overestimated her ability to approximate human warmth.

Either way, having Megyn Kelly fall flat on her smug face and endure small humiliations from her guests was one of the things I asked for from Benevolent White Santa.

Yeah, the amount of articles begging NBC not to replace Lauer with her are staggering.

[Maithanet]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

A Very Scary Number for Republicans

There are really two ways to interpret this:

1.  Republicans are claiming to be independents, but they'll probably still vote Republican.  This happened in 2008, with the full consequences of the Bush presidency staring them in the face, but then they all came roaring back to the GOP in 2010. 

2.  Trump(ism) is forcing portions of the GOP out (particularly college educated, suburban Republicans).  If that is really happening, then while polling shows that Trump is still very popular with Republicans, pollsters are weighting that group to be larger than it really is.  If that is really the case, Trump might be even less popular that polls show, and we wouldn't know it until votes are actually counted.  The 2017 election isn't big enough to get a good sample nationwide, but at least in Virginia, there is some evidence that this may have happened.  Unfortunately, Virginia isn't a very representative state anymore, with both more minorities and more college educated voters than typical. 

 

Given how much I want #2 to be true, I'm very leery of embracing it.  It is probably mostly #1, with a little sprinkling of #2. 

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

 

Excellent decision

[Ormond]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There are really two ways to interpret this:

1.  Republicans are claiming to be independents, but they'll probably still vote Republican.  This happened in 2008, with the full consequences of the Bush presidency staring them in the face, but then they all came roaring back to the GOP in 2010. 

2.  Trump(ism) is forcing portions of the GOP out (particularly college educated, suburban Republicans).  If that is really happening, then while polling shows that Trump is still very popular with Republicans, pollsters are weighting that group to be larger than it really is.  If that is really the case, Trump might be even less popular that polls show, and we wouldn't know it until votes are actually counted.  The 2017 election isn't big enough to get a good sample nationwide, but at least in Virginia, there is some evidence that this may have happened.  Unfortunately, Virginia isn't a very representative state anymore, with both more minorities and more college educated voters than typical. 

 

Given how much I want #2 to be true, I'm very leery of embracing it.  It is probably mostly #1, with a little sprinkling of #2. 

Well, the survey which was originally linked to said that the 5% decline for Republicans included Independents who say they lean Republican. In 2008, did Independents claiming they leaned Republican also go down? 

[OldGimletEye]

The conservative clown crew is working overtime.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/5/16737350/mueller-russia-scandal-peter-strzok-trump

Quote

A former top FBI counterintelligence official is now at the center of a right-wing media push to damage the credibility of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Mueller had dismissed an FBI agent named Peter Strzok from his investigative team back in August because the agent had sent text messages critical of Donald Trump to a colleague. It’s unclear if the agent violated any FBI rules, but Mueller removed him to ensure the investigation was free from accusations of partisan bias, according to the Times.

 

Quote

The news about Strzok provides ammunition for Trump supporters who believe that the Russia probe is a “witch hunt” designed to take down the president. But government ethics experts say that Mueller’s swift removal of Strzok from the Russia investigation actually boosts its credibility.

“The fact that Robert Mueller fired an investigator immediately when these texts came to light is evidence he’s running a tight ship and lends credibility to his investigation — not detracts from it,” Lisa Gilbert, an expert on government ethics at the watchdog group Public Citizen, told me.

 

[Maithanet]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, the survey which was originally linked to said that the 5% decline for Republicans included Independents who say they lean Republican. In 2008, did Independents claiming they leaned Republican also go down? 

Yes.  I mean, that's what I remember anyway, that there was movement both from Republican to Republican-leaning Independent and from Rep-leaning independents to independents who claim no affiliation.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Given how much I want #2 to be true, I'm very leery of embracing it.  It is probably mostly #1, with a little sprinkling of #2. 

Well, as Cillizza shows, it's not really about a difference between #1 and #2 - clearly Republicans do come back eventually, it's a matter of when.  The point is when party ID (and leaners) for the GOP is down, they tend to lose elections.  Gallup has these polls going back to 2004 (well, they have it going back much earlier, but that link was easy to find).  Here's the closest period to the elections each year:

• 2004:  48R - 48D  (EVEN)
• 2006:  39R - 49D  (D+10)
• 2008:  40R - 51D  (D+9)
• 2010:  44R - 47D  (D+3)
• 2012:  42R - 50D  (D+8)
• 2014:  47R - 41D  (R+6)
• 2016:  43R - 46D  (D+3)

Other than 2014, the Dems have a pretty consistently high number.  The variation is with Republican ID, which averages 45.5 in the four elections they "won" and 40.3 in the three elections they "lost."  Also, clearly, the Republicans can withstand a slight disadvantage, but when the spread gets into the high single digits, they lose.  Whether the voters they have lost in ID vote Dem or stay home (I suspect it's much more of the latter than the former) - only to come back in later elections - the results are the same.

[Morpheus]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The conservative clown crew is working overtime.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/5/16737350/mueller-russia-scandal-peter-strzok-trump

 

 

This week they are pushing that story, the cost of the investigation (a pittance next to the orange goblin's golf trips), and the idea that the rumored subpoena of Deutsche Bank is overstepping the original intent of the investigation.

It is just a coincidence that the pressure to end the investigation ramps up as it gets closer to Tangerine Nightmare.

[IheartIheartTesla]

In a world gone mad, Jeff Flake donated money to Doug Jones campaign, and apparently Schumer was one of the folks convincing Trump to move the embassy (or rather not not move) to Jerusalem.

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, as Cillizza shows, it's not really about a difference between #1 and #2 - clearly Republicans do come back eventually, it's a matter of when.  The point is when party ID (and leaners) for the GOP is down, they tend to lose elections.  Gallup has these polls going back to 2004 (well, they have it going back much earlier, but that link was easy to find).  Here's the closest period to the elections each year:

Maybe.  Trump is shifting alliances; you can't assume that every GOP voter will remain with the GOP forever.  Particularly when he's embracing policies that seem designed to screw over a huge swath of upper middle class suburbanites.  GOP voters disgusted with Bush came back once Obama was in office.  Perhaps the same will happen again, but you can't assume it will. 

Quote

Other than 2014, the Dems have a pretty consistently high number.  The variation is with Republican ID, which averages 45.5 in the four elections they "won" and 40.3 in the three elections they "lost."  Also, clearly, the Republicans can withstand a slight disadvantage, but when the spread gets into the high single digits, they lose.  Whether the voters they have lost in ID vote Dem or stay home (I suspect it's much more of the latter than the former) - only to come back in later elections - the results are the same.

Well, sort of.  In 2012, the Democrats are +8, and while they had a good election in the WH and Senate, they still didn't take the House (and it wasn't even particularly close).  I could easily see 2018 being a repeat of that, where the Dems overwhelmingly win more House votes than the Republicans, but only pick up ~15 seats and fall short of the majority. 

[OldGimletEye]

Schumer then is being a complete knucklehead on this matter and his advocacy is reckless.

[Dr. Pepper]

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have always had terrible policies and opinions about Israel.  It always upsets me more when Democrats have these bad opinions as it relates to Israel.

[Ormond]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Schumer then is being a complete knucklehead on this matter and his advocacy is reckless.

I agree with the above-- but demographically speaking, a Jewish senator from New York would be just the category of Democratic politician I would expect to most likely be in favor of this knucklehead move, so I don't see how him supporting this is a sign the world has gone crazy. 

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

In a world gone mad, Jeff Flake donated money to Doug Jones campaign, and apparently Schumer was one of the folks convincing Trump to move the embassy (or rather not not move) to Jerusalem.

Schumer has always had much more hawkish views about Israel than the Democratic party as a whole; this isn't something new. The only silver lining is that he doesn't usually pressure his colleagues on the issue.

[Fragile Bird]

So 4 female Democrat senators are asking for Franken's resignation.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

So 4 female Democrat senators are asking for Franken's resignation.

Was just about to come post on this.  Yet another woman has come forward to accuse Franken and Franken has again tried to deny and wiggle out of this.  He needs to go away. At least some Dems are finally taking a stand on this.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/al-franken-accusation-sexual-harassment-2006-281049

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/tax-plan-glitches-mistakes-republicans-208049

'Holy crap': Experts find tax plan riddled with glitches
Some of the provisions could be easily gamed, tax lawyers say.

Gottheimer and Lance make last-ditch effort to save SALT deduction

https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/12/05/gottheimer-and-lance-make-last-ditch-effort-to-save-salt-deduction-133711

Easily gamed.  Believe me.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump is shifting alliances; you can't assume that every GOP voter will remain with the GOP forever.  Particularly when he's embracing policies that seem designed to screw over a huge swath of upper middle class suburbanites.  GOP voters disgusted with Bush came back once Obama was in office.  Perhaps the same will happen again, but you can't assume it will. 

Of course, I'm just referring to interpreting the spread as an indicator for election results.

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In 2012, the Democrats are +8, and while they had a good election in the WH and Senate, they still didn't take the House (and it wasn't even particularly close).

2012 was a case of really bad coattails in the House - but they didn't overwhelmingly win more votes.  The Dems only won the overall vote by about a point (48.8 to 47.6) while Obama won by four (51.1 to 47.2).  It's actually surprising they picked up 8 seats considering they only won by a point.  (They also won the Senate overall vote 53.7 to 42.1 and picked up 2 seats, but that's obviously skewed by having 21 seats up to the GOP's 10).  If the Dems only win the House vote by a point or two (or three or four), obviously they're not taking back the House.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

Schumer has always had much more hawkish views about Israel than the Democratic party as a whole; this isn't something new. The only silver lining is that he doesn't usually pressure his colleagues on the issue.

He was even against the Iran deal.

[OldGimletEye]

I just tend to think that if I made a deal and the whole thing relied on Paul Ryan doing something, I think I’d demand Ryan’s Ayn Rand photo collection as ransom.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryan-wasnt-part-susan-collins-tax-deal

Quote

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) surprised many when she threw her support behind the Republicans’ tax plan on Friday. Among other things, independent estimates showed that the GOP proposal would leave 13 million Americans without health insurance, and that’s ordinarily the sort of thing the Maine Republican would care about.

As part of an explanation, Collins said she’d reached an agreement with party leaders for votes on two other pieces of legislation, which she believes would mitigate the harm done by the GOP tax plan. There are, however, two problems with this, the first being that the proposals Collins has in mind appear inadequate to address the systemic harm done by her party’s proposal.

The second problem is that Collins’ deal didn’t guarantee success in the House. The Hill reported yesterday: