U.S. Politics: A Wolff In Sheep's Clothing

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Another one bites the dust.

 

That now puts it at 30 House Republicans retiring I believe. Some are from extremely red districts that are very unlikely pickups, others are very good opportunities for the midterms (like this one).

The big question for the rest of the year is, do these retiring Republicans decide to stop following the party line when it conflicts with their personal beliefs or do they go YOLO and jump all in with no worries about the possible electoral fallout?

[Morpheus]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

That now puts it at 30 House Republicans retiring I believe. Some are from extremely red districts that are very unlikely pickups, others are very good opportunities for the midterms (like this one).

The big question for the rest of the year is, do these retiring Republicans decide to stop following the party line when it conflicts with their personal beliefs or do they go YOLO and jump all in with no worries about the possible electoral fallout?

They may follow the Corker model, offer tepid criticism while still supporting the agenda, and the come back around to slavish devotion once they get a sweet kickback on a bill.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Good riddance.  His anti-Obama crusade wasted a ton of money and never found anything.

What else would you expect from a man who was twice arrested for grand theft auto only to go on to make a massive fortune selling car alarm systems?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Does the NC gerrymandering ruling matter?  If those maps had to be redrawn it would be a huge help for Democrats, it is currently 10 Reps, 3 Dems in one of the most purple states in the union. 

Is the Republican appeal going to work and it'll just be a matter of what the SC decides about the Wisconsin Gerrymandering case?  Why is that case not going to be decided until June or so?  It seems like the SC might want to speed that up given the importance it has on the midterm elections.  I mean, they didn't wait nine months to decide Bush v Gore...

The bolded is my understanding - when I saw the headline last night I got excited for a second, but I assume this one's really just awaiting the Gill v Whitford decision.  They'll announce the opinion in May or June because that's when SCOTUS announces opinions.  I'm sure they could speed it up, but I don't see why it's necessary since the judges are making North Carolina redraw the districts in the next few weeks (so they'll be ready for the midterms) anyway.

57 minutes ago, Fez said:

That now puts it at 30 House Republicans retiring I believe. Some are from extremely red districts that are very unlikely pickups, others are very good opportunities for the midterms (like this one).

Yeah the downside is Issa's seat was already viewed as a tossup by Charlie Cook et al.  With good reason - dude barely won in 2016, and that's a red flag for a long term incumbent.  Good news is the seat already had a very strong Dem primary field that might scare off quality potential Republicans.

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What else would you expect from a man who was twice arrested for grand theft auto only to go on to make a massive fortune selling car alarm systems?

Hey, I don't care who you are, that story makes you fucking cool.  And while I obviously loathed his politics, I didn't mind Issa too much personally when he was a frequent guest on Maher.  Seemed to limit the amount of times he had to go 100% bullshit mode, and appeared to have to the decency to be ashamed when he did so.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Whelp….

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/china-is-reportedly-thinking-of-halting-us-treasury-purchases.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/us-stock-futures-dow-fed-speeches-data-politics-on-the-agenda.html

It's ok.  Trump will send nasty, threatening tweets China's way and then it will be all fixed.  

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, Stego said:

They were stupid enough to nominate the unelectable and saddle us with Trump. 

Unelectable? Clinton won the second most votes of all time.

getting the second most votes of all time should indicate you’re rather electable and well liked by  65 million voters 

getting 65 million votes means the label unelectable should never apply.

clinton was Beaten by an archaic system designed for the sole and only purpose to preserve slavelords and plutocrats dominion over political power. Being unable to overcome the slavelord system doesn’t make her unelectable.

The system is archaic and often doesn’t matter (which is why lazy fat cat dc insiders are always eager to keep and support this pro-slavery system in our elections), unfortunately in this case, an ancient Trap was triggered and Indiana Jones got squashed by the boulder. Sometimes you beat the boulder, sometimes the boulder beats you. Doesn’t make you unelectable.

[Maithanet]

36 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The bolded is my understanding - when I saw the headline last night I got excited for a second, but I assume this one's really just awaiting the Gill v Whitford decision.  They'll announce the opinion in May or June because that's when SCOTUS announces opinions.  I'm sure they could speed it up, but I don't see why it's necessary since the judges are making North Carolina redraw the districts in the next few weeks (so they'll be ready for the midterms) anyway.

I'm not sure I follow you.  The Judge ordered that NC redraw the districts within a few weeks to be ready for the midterms.  But Republicans are appealing that decision.  Are you saying that the redraw will go forward while we're waiting for the appeal to go forward? Because if so, this seems like a pretty big deal.  But if the appeal means the redraw won't happen, then it seems like candidates are going to get screwed, since the primaries are in Feb and the SC decision isn't expected till June.

FYI, this isn't just a case of me not doing my homework, I've read several articles about this and they aren't very helpful in answering these questions.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure I follow you.  The Judge ordered that NC redraw the districts within a few weeks to be ready for the midterms.  But Republicans are appealing that decision.  Are you saying that the redraw will go forward while we're waiting for the appeal to go forward? Because if so, this seems like a pretty big deal.  But if the appeal means the redraw won't happen, then it seems like candidates are going to get screwed, since the primaries are in Feb and the SC decision isn't expected till June.

Yes, my understanding is the NC GOP is still going to have to redraw the maps by January 29.  They can appeal, but unless a higher court (in this case only SCOTUS) puts an injunction on the the decision, they're still gonna have to follow the order and present the court with a new map.  Could be wrong, but the articles I read seemed pretty clear about this:

Quote

The federal judges have given state lawmakers until Jan. 29 to fix the issue and show them a new map.

The deadline is important because candidates for the November congressional elections begin filing for the primaries on Feb. 12.

Quote

Federal judges said Tuesday that North Carolina will have to quickly redraw its 13 congressional districts because the map is unconstitutionally partisan. [...]

The judges gave the state about three weeks to file a new plan with the court so it will be in place before the 2018 midterms.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Hey, I don't care who you are, that story makes you fucking cool.  And while I obviously loathed his politics, I didn't mind Issa too much personally when he was a frequent guest on Maher.  Seemed to limit the amount of times he had to go 100% bullshit mode, and appeared to have to the decency to be ashamed when he did so.

He did show some level of shame, but at the same time he seemed like he was laughing at getting away with what he was doing. There’s nothing redeemable about the guy as things stand now.

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's ok.  Trump will send nasty, threatening tweets China's way and then it will be all fixed.  

Jokes aside, this could be extremely problematic, both in the short and long term.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, what’s the over/under on how long it will take Trump and/or SHS to find this story and replicate it?:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42616817

[DMC]

@Maithanet

Also, from the NPR link above at the end of the article:

Quote

As the clock ticks down on the North Carolina court order, a majority of the judges agreed that if the legislature won't alter the map, they would hire a redistricting expert to draw replacement boundaries.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

45 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Unelectable? Clinton won the second most votes of all time.

getting the second most votes of all time should indicate you’re rather electable and well liked by  65 million voters 

getting 65 million votes means the label unelectable should never apply.

clinton was Beaten by an archaic system designed for the sole and only purpose to preserve slavelords and plutocrats dominion over political power. Being unable to overcome the slavelord system doesn’t make her unelectable.

The system is archaic and often doesn’t matter (which is why lazy fat cat dc insiders are always eager to keep and support this pro-slavery system in our elections), unfortunately in this case, an ancient Trap was triggered and Indiana Jones got squashed by the boulder. Sometimes you beat the boulder, sometimes the boulder beats you. Doesn’t make you unelectable.

No.  Slavery had very little to do with the structure and creation of the Electoral College.  At the time of its creation small states like Rhode Island and New Jersey (hardly bastions of slaveholders power) were concerned that they wouldn't have a strong enough voice in the election of the President and the Governance of the US.  They insisted upon the Senate and the Electoral College, not to preserve slavery, but to preserve the voice of small population States in the Governance of the US.  Largely populated Slaveholding States like Virginia opposed this plan but conceded to the compromise that created the Senate and the EC.

You can call it archaic, and you aren't wrong, it is simply that the rationael for the creation of the EC had nothing to do with Slavery.

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Another one bites the dust.

 

He was never on my radar until I watched him explain on CNN how unfair Canada was, which is why NAFTA had to go. Canada, he said, taxed imports 15% via the VAT we have but not Canadian goods. Fucking idiot doesn't know what a value added tax is. Everything is taxed the same, the federal goods and services tax + the local provincial sales tax. Manufacturers get input credits for the tax they pay, or else a manufactured item would be taxed at every build and sale level. The tax is paid by the consumer in the end, on all the components. Basic economics. The US would be in great shape if they had a value added tax.

Issa not running again is a gift to the world.

[Fez]

I know the ongoing rehabilitation of Bill Kristol annoys many, but I think he comes off pretty well in this interview https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/10/16865502/bill-kristol-trump-status-quo; while still being quite conservative.

Quote

 

It’s somewhat challenging, because of course who makes the decision and how he justifies it does matter as well. So the balls and strikes thing is just simple-minded and silly, ultimately. I mean, you’ve got one team, if you want to use this analogy and belabor it, that isn’t committed to playing the game according to the traditional rules.

At that point, you can’t just sit there and say, “I’m just calling balls and strikes and I don’t care if the pitcher is, you know, stepping 20 feet off the mound and throwing spitballs and trying to bean the other team’s batters.” At some point, you have to say, “We have to defend the rules of the game.”

So it does get complicated. I’m not on the “balls and strikes” side. I’m not on the “fanatically opposed to everything that the Trump administration does because it’s done by the Trump administration side,” either. So I support the moving of the [US] embassy to Jerusalem, or the revision of Title IX, or traditional positions the Weekly Standard has argued for before Trump even existed.

But I think it would also be foolish to go the other direction and say you don’t rethink anything. The fact of Trump is a big fact. You’d be foolish not to rethink your judgment of some aspects of conservatism, insofar as it’s enabled Trump, insofar as so many conservatives are enabling Trump. It has made me rethink certain aspects of conservative doctrine and dogma.

 

It'd be nice if we ever got back to this being the other side.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

He was never on my radar until I watched him explain on CNN how unfair Canada was, which is why NAFTA had to go. Canada, he said, taxed imports 15% via the VAT we have but not Canadian goods. Fucking idiot doesn't know what a value added tax is.

Well see you have to remember it's the "Party of Business!" And the Business guys from the Party of Business always understand this economically stuff. The Republican Party says so!

But anyway, maybe the dumb ass should have read Martin Feldstein's (a Republican leaning conservative type) old paper about the VAT, which explained quite clearly that a VAT wasn't a tariff.

[DMC]

So a local TV station put out a rapid poll with Joe Arpaio in the Arizona GOP primary.  Caution should be used as there were only 504 respondents and the poll was only conducted yesterday immediately when the Arpaio news broke.  That's...not a very good poll.  Anyway, it had McSally at 31, Arpaio at 29, and Ward dropping to 25.  What was interesting (and creative) about the poll is they also asked the question with whether each candidate was endorsed by certain "people:"

Quote

In the survey, a Trump endorsement for Arpaio bumps him up to 35% of the vote, while a McSally endorsement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings her to 31%. Ward falls to 13% with a potential endorsement from former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.

I do expect Ward's support to plummet if Trump endorses Arpaio.  McSally is the only halfway decent candidate - and the only one with a good chance to win the general - so it'd be pretty funny if Trump squandered that due to his hard-on for Sheriff Joe.

[Sivin]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

I know the ongoing rehabilitation of Bill Kristol annoys many, but I think he comes off pretty well in this interview https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/10/16865502/bill-kristol-trump-status-quo; while still being quite conservative.

It'd be nice if we ever got back to this being the other side.

I've been following Mr. Kristol's public showings for a while myself, talk about a man who woke up one day and realized he was living in the monkey house. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Slavery had very little to do with the structure and creation of the Electoral College.  At the time of its creation small states like Rhode Island and New Jersey (hardly bastions of slaveholders power) were concerned that they wouldn't have a strong enough voice in the election of the President and the Governance of the US.  They insisted upon the Senate and the Electoral College, not to preserve slavery, but to preserve the voice of small population States in the Governance of the US.  Largely populated Slaveholding States like Virginia opposed this plan but conceded to the compromise that created the Senate and the EC.

You can call it archaic, and you aren't wrong, it is simply that the rationael for the creation of the EC had nothing to do with Slavery.

Ok while constructed by Slavelord Madison it was not necessarily for their own conscious benefit. However when the system failed so fucking hard in the election of 1800 and was reformed by amendment thereafter by Slavelord  Jefferson and Slavelord Madison. But by then they had realized what a massive boon the system (when in practice) was to slavery, the electoral college functioned to preserve and promulgate the institution of slavery and kept the slave states in dominant political power over the country for 99% of the time. Absent the traitor states seceding, we would still have slavery today because of the electoral college. The only use of the electoral college throughout its history is that of oppression—whether slavery, suffrage, or Jim Crow—and it has to go.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Ok while constructed by Slavelord Madison it was not necessarily for their own conscious benefit. However when the system failed so fucking hard in the election of 1800 and was reformed by amendment thereafter by Slavelord  Jefferson and Slavelord Madison. But by then they had realized what a massive boon the system (when in practice) was to slavery, the electoral college functioned to preserve and promulgate the institution of slavery and kept the slave states in dominant political power over the country for 99% of the time. Absent the traitor states seceding, we would still have slavery today because of the electoral college. The only use of the electoral college throughout its history is that of oppression—whether slavery, suffrage, or Jim Crow—and it has to go.

I agree it should go. 

The Change to the EC system in 1800 was to have a seperate election for the Vice Presidency no longer requiring the second highest voter winner in the EC to serve as VP.  If the EC was so great at preserving the slave power why did the States of the old confederacy choose to attempt to leave the Union when the EC was won by Abraham Lincoln in 1860?

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

So a local TV station put out a rapid poll with Joe Arpaio in the Arizona GOP primary.  Caution should be used as there were only 504 respondents and the poll was only conducted yesterday immediately when the Arpaio news broke.  That's...not a very good poll.  Anyway, it had McSally at 31, Arpaio at 29, and Ward dropping to 25.  What was interesting (and creative) about the poll is they also asked the question with whether each candidate was endorsed by certain "people:"

I do expect Ward's support to plummet if Trump endorses Arpaio.  McSally is the only halfway decent candidate - and the only one with a good chance to win the general - so it'd be pretty funny if Trump squandered that due to his hard-on for Sheriff Joe.

Wasn't Arpaio's job an elected position? Wasn't he elected term after term, to do the obnoxious things he did? Doesn't that bode well for his election?