U.S. Politics NEXT!

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

Kristol has lots of terrible opinions that aren't backed up by the available evidence, but he thinks he is right about them and wants to make policy based on them because he thinks they are the right decisions. Remember W? He was a terrible president but he thought he was doing the right thing. Both look much better in light of the current administration, which barely makes a pretense of responsible behavior in favor of naked looting and bigotry.

Yeah, Kristol has tons of bad ideas and has been responsible for his share of bad things happening. However, Kristol has consistently been extremely anti-Trump from the get-go. However, it's easy for him to do so, since Kristol doesn't really care about domestic policy; so things like tax cuts and SCOTUS seats don't sway him like they have many other Republicans. All Kristol cares about foreign policy, and while I think his policies are mostly terrible, they are terrible in a quite different way from Trump's; and he hates what Trump is doing.

It'd be nice though if he had any sway among conservatives outside the very small group of true neo-cons that exist. As is, he's mostly ignored.

[DMC]

15 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you seen any polls that are being broken down by region, states and/or districts? The polls I've seen have been national polls as far as I can tell. 

Nah, I've only seen national one's too.  You could dig into the reports and check but I suspect even then most firms aren't going to break it down too much.  Unless you have a really large sample, state-by-state isn't going to give you a large enough sample to have reliable statistical power (i.e. the confidence interval or "margin of error" will be far too large).  Region is a good idea that's probably doable, but don't think I've ever seen that for the generic ballot question.

[Maithanet]

I think that Democrats (or maybe just the media?) are really getting ahead of themselves predicting a Democratic wave election in 2018.  They point to things like Trump's historic unpopularity, Democrats having a lead the generic ballot between +10 and +18, and the generic ballot being generally predictive even one year out.

However, there are several reasons why I think this is counting chickens:

1.  Trump is very unpopular, and his first year has been rough, with incompetence, indictments, the failed healthcare push and a very unpopular tax bill.  It seems like there might be nowhere to go but up.  There are three underlying factors which should all help Trump: the economy is strong, a brief sugar high from tax cuts, and general polarization.  All of those mean that if Trump can improve from atrocious to merely poor as a President in year 2, he could see a significant improvement in the polls.

2.  We might have either a war or a terrorist attack by November, and unfortunately, either one will probably help the Republicans. Trump's strongman act will go over a lot better when he has an outside enemy to vilify, rather than his current enemies list of democrats, the media, minorities, women, etc.

3.  Too much faith in the generic ballot, because incumbency and partisanship matter in voting.  In 2006, the Democrats had an advantage of +11.5 in 2006, but the actual result was D+7.9.  No one is entirely sure how much of an advantage the Democrats need to take the House, given the structural advantages Republicans have from gerrymandering and population sorting, but estimates are between D+5.5 and D+9. The generic ballot advantage seen right now is approximately D+12.  Thus, even with this stunning advantage in the generic ballot, it is quite possible they could turn in a performance of D+8, and still fall short of the majority.  If they fall even a little bit (say, D+9), then taking the House has to be considered unlikely.  Which is just super depressing considering the 2010 Republican wave that gave Republicans a 242-193 majority was only R+6.8.

[Mexal]

I don't know Maith. I think the signs are pretty strong that a wave is possible. I don't think it'll stop the Dems from working hard and I don't think it'll stop them from working to get out the vote. But I do think the current climate, the historic unpopularity of Trump and the GOP and the increase in candidates/activism/enthusiasm points to the Dems taking a run at the House. The sugar high of the tax cuts might not last all that long. It's a highly unpopular bill that doesn't kick in until 2019 and has a major issue in that it benefits large corporations and the wealthy which is not at all what the populist Trump movement was about. There is also the issue with CHIP, Dreamers, ACA and so on that will affect people's lives. Assuming no terrorist attack happens, I think it's pretty clear the Dems have a shot.

[OldGimletEye]

Now conservative sorts of people. If you read the Wall Street Journal, read hard and read critically, otherwise:

1. You just might end up being a real conservative clown.

2. You just might end up running down the street, hysterically, like a conservative nitwit saying stuff, “OMG, the ACA increased health care cost! It’s increased healthcare inflation! Summon the Tea Party! Let’s dress up as Paul Revere…!” and then proceed to act like a bunch of real buffoons.
 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-failed-cost-controls-1513812078

 

Quote

When the authors of the Affordable Care Act promised to “bend the cost curve” in health care, it was typical Washington doublespeak. Voters likely heard those words as a promise that costs would go down, but the intended meaning was merely that they would rise more slowly than before.

Yet even by that meager standard, ObamaCare is a failure. Costs are rising faster than before, and there’s no real prospect of a reversal. The key provisions of the law that were supposed to produce savings and efficiencies either haven’t worked...

If I were sitting around in 2009, thinking about how to reform healthcare I’d want to attempt to do two things. 1) increase the real consumption of healthcare. That’s the whole fuckin’ point of the ACA. To increase health care consumption among those people that didn’t have it. And 2) to make sure that the increased healthcare spending didn’t eat up too much into people’s other consumption choices.

Using a healthcare price index tells me if I accomplished goal number 1. It doesn’t tell me anything about how I did with goal number 2. If I want to understand how I did with goal number 2, I need to use a general inflation index, and not a healthcare inflation index.

And I’ll add: I think it’s easy to get upset with the average Republican goober. But, in many ways, he doesn’t have a chance when the “intellectuals” in his own party continually spew reams of bullshit. And recently, we saw bullshit being peddled by Republican leaning economist types who willing to stake their professional credibility on this last tax bill. The elite opinion makers within the Republican Party need to clean up their act badly.
 

And conservative sorts of people, just in case you think I’m bullshitting you, here:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/november/contribution-to-low-pce-inflation-from-healthcare/

Quote

After eight years of economic recovery, inflation remains below the FOMC’s target. Dissecting the underlying price data by spending category reveals that low inflation largely reflects prices that are relatively insensitive to overall economic conditions. Notably, modest increases in health-care prices, which have been held down by mandated cuts to the growth of Medicare payments, have helped moderate overall inflation. Further slow growth in health-care prices is likely to remain a drag on inflation.

 

Quote

What has been causing this persistent decline in health-care services inflation? A major factor has been legislated changes to Medicare payments. Through various pieces of legislation, including the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government has slowed the growth of Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals.

 

[Mexal]

11 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Mexico abstained as well.

This is America's response...

 

[Morpheus]

Nikki Haley is awful. She got a lot of credit for getting the new NK sanctions, but she is terrible diplomat and she always sides with the most regressive elements when it comes to human rights and LGBT protection. 

[Fez]

Also worth noting about the tax cuts, the ARRA that Obama signed in early 2009 also cut taxes; and it was a payroll tax cut so it was more squarely aimed at the working and middle classes. It didn't make a difference in the 2010 midterms, and a big reason that polls showed only a minority thought Obama had cut their taxes; most people either thought their taxes were the same or that Obama had raised them (I forget which had the plurality). People ignore the evidence that is inconvenient for them. And in this case, considering how little benefit most voters will see from these tax cuts, even in the first two years when all the provisions are in effect, there isn't much to ignore.

ETA: CBS is reporting that Trump will now sign the tax bill today, rather than waiting until January 3 as was originally planned. Good luck to all the accountants who need to handle the final 9 days of the year differently than the rest! (I remain confused as to why most of the bill takes effect on January 1, 2018 but some provisions take effect immediately upon the bill being signed into law).

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I don't know Maith. I think the signs are pretty strong that a wave is possible. I don't think it'll stop the Dems from working hard and I don't think it'll stop them from working to get out the vote. But I do think the current climate, the historic unpopularity of Trump and the GOP and the increase in candidates/activism/enthusiasm points to the Dems taking a run at the House. The sugar high of the tax cuts might not last all that long. It's a highly unpopular bill that doesn't kick in until 2019 and has a major issue in that it benefits large corporations and the wealthy which is not at all what the populist Trump movement was about. There is also the issue with CHIP, Dreamers, ACA and so on that will affect people's lives. Assuming no terrorist attack happens, I think it's pretty clear the Dems have a shot.

The Democrats definitely have a shot.  I just think that articles with titles like "The Democratic Wave Could Turn Into a Flood" are getting way ahead of themselves.  It will take a wave for Democrats to win.  Democrats won the house vote by D+1.2 in 2012 and they weren't even CLOSE to taking the House.  I just think that the more likely outcome is a solid win in the House, something like D+5.  That would mean they win the most competitive districts like IA-1 and VA-10, as well as open races in less competitive areas like PA-15, but districts like GA-6 (we all remember that one, right?) survive, and the Republican majority does as well. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Nah, I've only seen national one's too.  You could dig into the reports and check but I suspect even then most firms aren't going to break it down too much.  Unless you have a really large sample, state-by-state isn't going to give you a large enough sample to have reliable statistical power (i.e. the confidence interval or "margin of error" will be far too large).  Region is a good idea that's probably doable, but don't think I've ever seen that for the generic ballot question.

I think it’s doable at the district level if you’re willing to put in the time and money. That would give us a much clearer picture of the mood of the public. I just get a little nervous about those numbers because I feel like there’s a good chance they’re over sampling urban areas which would skew the data.

Also, on a somewhat related note, I saw something on T.V. last night that’s a cause for optimism for Democrats. We’ve all seen the stat that there are 23 Republicans who represent districts that Clinton won, but there are also 13 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than five points, and 23 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than ten points. There are a lot of seats to pick off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

When I was in high school, I actually thought for a brief period that Kristol was Glenn Beck.

 

ETA: Nah, actually that was probably college.

When did Newt get out of the game?

He left office at the beginning of 1999, when you were 37.

[Mexal]

27 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The Democrats definitely have a shot.  I just think that articles with titles like "The Democratic Wave Could Turn Into a Flood" are getting way ahead of themselves.  It will take a wave for Democrats to win.  Democrats won the house vote by D+1.2 in 2012 and they weren't even CLOSE to taking the House.  I just think that the more likely outcome is a solid win in the House, something like D+5.  That would mean they win the most competitive districts like IA-1 and VA-10, as well as open races in less competitive areas like PA-15, but districts like GA-6 (we all remember that one, right?) survive, and the Republican majority does as well. 

D+5 seems low to me. I think D+8-9 is more likely given where we are today. Things could change though, we're still a year out, but the enthusiasm gap right now is pretty big.

[OldGimletEye]

Warning. Before reading this, you might want to get a box of tissues to wipe your eyes.

It’s a real tear jerker.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-real-story-behind-kristi-noems-death-tax-ordeal_us_5a3c1874e4b06d1621b2fe00

Quote

The federal estate tax is so burdensome that Rep. Kristi Noem’s family spent 10 years in debt just to pay the bill after her father died in a farming accident, the South Dakota Republican has repeatedly claimed throughout her political career.

Quote

But documents from Noem’s father’s estate show the congresswoman has omitted important details. After her father died in 1994, Noem’s mother received a life insurance payout big enough to pay the estate tax bill several times over, according to documents that HuffPost obtained from Hamlin County’s clerk of courts.

Wait. Wait. Don't tell me this. I'm still getting over my grief!

Quote

Since taking office during the Tea Party wave of 2010, Noem, who is now running for governor of South Dakota, has never mentioned the insurance nor disclosed the amount of the tax, though she’s characterized it as a crushing burden.

She was too distraught by the debt. Leave Kristi alone!!!

Quote

“We had a tough choice: sell off a portion of our family farm or face a decade in debt,” Noem wrote in a Fox News op-ed last month. “We took a decade in debt and struggled to keep our heads above water.”

It really was a hard knock life for ol' Kristi.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it’s doable at the district level if you’re willing to put in the time and money. That would give us a much clearer picture of the mood of the public. I just get a little nervous about those numbers because I feel like there’s a good chance they’re over sampling urban areas which would skew the data.

Well, that's a lot of time and money.  If you wanted to do it at the district level, I'd suggest at least 200 respondents per district, which would mean you're looking at an overall sample approaching 100k.  That's out of most firms' price range (and/or is not worth it).  Plus, if you were gonna do it at the district level, why not at least ask directly about the incumbent (if she's running again)?  Or, even at this point, you would probably have some idea to ask some general election matchups.

The entire idea of the generic ballot is it gives you an idea of the national trend - and thus it's correlated to the overall popular House vote.  I can't speak to each firm's weighting strategies - that's why taking the poll of polls is always best - but even if they're overestimating urban areas, that is reflected in the expectation that the Dems will need to win the popular vote by 6-8 points in order to retake the House due to gerrymandering, etc.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

D+5 seems low to me. I think D+8-9 is more likely given where we are today. Things could change though, we're still a year out, but the enthusiasm gap right now is pretty big.

The enthusiasm gap right now is indeed pretty big.  But a year is a long time, and I mentioned several reasons why I think Democrats are getting ahead of themselves assuming they'll be able to get D+9 (a margin that has only been achieved once (2008) in the past thirty years). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

In case anyone was still wondering:

Quote

It's been more than a week since embattled Alabama Republican Roy Moore lost a special Senate election to Democrat Doug Jones — and he still hasn't conceded.

But Moore has posted links to his Facebook page discussing "How Muslims and Marxists delivered for Doug Jones" and that "Doug Jones's Gay Son Is 'Thrilled' by the Alabama win."

http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moore-facebook-posts-not-concede-2017-12

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

The generic ballot advantage seen right now is approximately D+12.  Thus, even with this stunning advantage in the generic ballot, it is quite possible they could turn in a performance of D+8, and still fall short of the majority.  If they fall even a little bit (say, D+9), then taking the House has to be considered unlikely.  Which is just super depressing considering the 2010 Republican wave that gave Republicans a 242-193 majority was only R+6.8.

It's true that there is usually a drop off from huge leads to the actual House popular vote.  However, (1) the president's party usually loses ground as the election approaches, and (2) the numbers right now are better than any election in a very long time.  As one of those overconfident articles here shows.  The 13 point advantage is higher even the 11.5 the Dems had in 2006.  Now, they ended up only winning the popular vote by 8 that year - so point taken - but that was good enough to pickup 31 seats and retake the House.  Any seasoned follower of congressional elections will admit the generic ballot numbers coming out recently are indeed a very good reason to be excited - I don't see much use in worrying about a terrorist attack.

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’ve all seen the stat that there are 23 Republicans who represent districts that Clinton won, but there are also 13 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than five points, and 23 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than ten points. There are a lot of seats to pick off.

Oh yeah - one good way to look at this is with Cook PVI, as I've done in there he past and the vox article cited above breaks down as well:

Quote

So in addition to the 23 Republican-held districts Clinton won, there are:

• 30 Republican-held seats with a PVI of Republican+5 or below (essentially, the next plausible batch of targets in a pro-Democratic year)
• 31 Republican-held seats with a PVI of Republican+6 to Republican+8 (seats that could potentially be endangered in a really big wave)
• 30 Republican-held seats with a PVI of Republican+9 to Republican+10 (seats that would probably only be vulnerable to a tsunami-like wave, or in case of scandal)

Of course, this goes both ways - there are 12 House Dem seats in districts Trump won.

[Mexal]

23 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The enthusiasm gap right now is indeed pretty big.  But a year is a long time, and I mentioned several reasons why I think Democrats are getting ahead of themselves assuming they'll be able to get D+9 (a margin that has only been achieved once (2008) in the past thirty years). 

You did. I just think they're less likely to make a difference. The only one that I can see mattering is the terrorism attack but that would have to be really bad and it would have to actually happen. As we've seen, we're so used to mass murder these days that the public tends to forget about it a week later.

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's true that there is usually a drop off from huge leads to the actual House popular vote.  However, (1) the president's party usually loses ground as the election approaches, and (2) the numbers right now are better than any election in a very long time.  As one of those overconfident articles here shows.  The 13 point advantage is higher even the 11.5 the Dems had in 2006.  Now, they ended up only winning the popular vote by 8 that year - so point taken - but that was good enough to pickup 31 seats and retake the House.  Any seasoned follower of congressional elections will admit the generic ballot numbers coming out recently are indeed a very good reason to be excited - I don't see much use in worrying about a terrorist attack.

But Democrats winning 31 seats in 2006 was before the 2010 gerrymander.  The 2012 House election was really the crown jewel of Republican gerrymandering.  Democrats went from R+6.9 in 2010 to D+1.2 in 2012 and they only picked up 8 seats.  A swing of 8 points in the popular vote only changed 8 seats in the 435 seat house! 

That alone is reason for caution.  Nobody really knows what margin is needed to retake the house.  It might be D+6, or D+8 or even higher.  And if it is higher, that is a really really hard lift, even with a super motivated electorate.  Just look at the 2017 VA House of Delegates.  Democrats were far more motivated, and they won the overall House vote by D+9.5.  And while they made big gains, Republicans still hold either 50 or 51 seats, depending on a coin flip!  The Democrats won by almost ten points and they're still holding onto hope that they'll have a SHARE of the chamber.

I fear the House of Representatives in 2018 could have a similar result. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Also worth noting about the tax cuts, the ARRA that Obama signed in early 2009 also cut taxes; and it was a payroll tax cut so it was more squarely aimed at the working and middle classes. It didn't make a difference in the 2010 midterms, and a big reason that polls showed only a minority thought Obama had cut their taxes; most people either thought their taxes were the same or that Obama had raised them (I forget which had the plurality). People ignore the evidence that is inconvenient for them. And in this case, considering how little benefit most voters will see from these tax cuts, even in the first two years when all the provisions are in effect, there isn't much to ignore.

ETA: CBS is reporting that Trump will now sign the tax bill today, rather than waiting until January 3 as was originally planned. Good luck to all the accountants who need to handle the final 9 days of the year differently than the rest! (I remain confused as to why most of the bill takes effect on January 1, 2018 but some provisions take effect immediately upon the bill being signed into law).

Yup. I saw a report the other day that the average tax cut from that measure for the middle class was $800 a year and next to no one noticed it. Most analyses I’ve seen for Trump’s tax cut estimate that the same group of people will receive a $900 a year tax cut. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

As to your ETA, did Congress grant the offsetting spending waiver?