US Politics: Borrow And Spend Conservatism Marches On

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Here's a political debate I've been having with myself and wanted to get the board's opinion.  Which of the following 2018 election scenarios would you pick, given the choice?

Option 1:  Democrats pick up 28 house seats to gain control of the chamber, get a net zero in the Senate, flip 3 governorships (IL, ME, NM), but fail to flip FL, MI, OH, WI. 

Option 2:  Democrats pick up 18 house seats and net 0 senate seats, so Republicans continue to control both chambers.  Democrats do better in governor's races, flipping IL, ME, NM, NV, NH, FL, MI, and WI. 

We need the House. I sincerely fear for the stability of the nation if R's get three more cracks at Reconciliation with redistricting for good on the line.

 

[Shryke]

17 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Omarosa is planning a tell-all book about the White House.

Friends of Trump are lining up to take shots at her.

Piers Morgan is now saying she offered to have sex with him in exchange for his support on Celebrity Apprentice.

Break out the popcorn!

 

Lovett or Leave It had a bit on her (I think upcoming) interview on Big Brother. It's just ... it's insane. She's a reality TV star who worked at the White House for a reality TV President and is now talking about it the fucked up situation there to the fucking host of Big Brother, a reality TV show she returned to after working at the fucking White House.

[Yukle]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Option 1:  Democrats pick up 28 house seats to gain control of the chamber, get a net zero in the Senate, flip 3 governorships (IL, ME, NM), but fail to flip FL, MI, OH, WI. 

Option 2:  Democrats pick up 18 house seats and net 0 senate seats, so Republicans continue to control both chambers.  Democrats do better in governor's races, flipping IL, ME, NM, NV, NH, FL, MI, and WI. 

Neither one is palatable, and governorships don't mean much since the Republicans will just gut their powers as they did in North Carolina. While a long-shot, control of the Senate is an absolutely necessity moving forward. Then all of Trump's appointments can be blocked (sort of, agency heads will just be appointed as "temporary" stand-ins who last all of the term). But it does mean blocking any more poor court appointments to the Federal and Supreme courts. McConnell blocked hundreds of Obama's and now the spots are being filled by literally evil white men.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

We need the House. I sincerely fear for the stability of the nation if R's get three more cracks at Reconciliation with redistricting for good on the line.

If redistricting is your priority, the governorships are much more important.  Governor's have veto power over redistricting maps, so they can make sure that the maps are reasonable.  While I have no doubt that the Republicans will find something creatively terrible to do with reconciliation, it's pretty unlikely that they could get something about redistricting under that scrutiny unless they just abolish the filibuster altogether. 

In addition, the current house majority is 238-193.  If that margin is reduced to just a few votes, Paul Ryan (or whoever is Speaker) is going to have a helluva time getting anything passed.  Hell, even the tax bill had 12 Republican defections, and that was a Republican wet dream. 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Neither one is palatable, and governorships don't mean much since the Republicans will just gut their powers as they did in North Carolina. While a long-shot, control of the Senate is an absolutely necessity moving forward. Then all of Trump's appointments can be blocked (sort of, agency heads will just be appointed as "temporary" stand-ins who last all of the term). But it does mean blocking any more poor court appointments to the Federal and Supreme courts. McConnell blocked hundreds of Obama's and now the spots are being filled by literally evil white men.

Uh, ok?  Living in a government fully controlled by Republicans is really scary and dangerous.  But whether it's palatable or not, it's a fact, and retaking the Senate remains a long shot after how badly the Democrats did in 2014 and 2016. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Here's a political debate I've been having with myself and wanted to get the board's opinion.  Which of the following 2018 election scenarios would you pick, given the choice?

Option 1:  Democrats pick up 28 house seats to gain control of the chamber, get a net zero in the Senate, flip 3 governorships (IL, ME, NM), but fail to flip FL, MI, OH, WI. 

Option 2:  Democrats pick up 18 house seats and net 0 senate seats, so Republicans continue to control both chambers.  Democrats do better in governor's races, flipping IL, ME, NM, NV, NH, FL, MI, and WI. 

Depends. If the Supreme Court puts an end to political gerrymandering, then you can do without the governorships. I'd pin my hopes on Dems somehow getting a hold of the senate (as the one chamber) anyway. Otherwise I think you might be better off in the long run to pick up Governorships (and state assemblies) to level the playing field or beat the GOP with its own weapons. Afterall it's less than 3 years (even if it feels like an eternity) left with Trump, possibly even less, here's hoping that Muller sends Kushner, Donnie "Fatso", and Donnie Jr. to prison.

20 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

She has truly fantastic tits. Like seriously. Are those real? Can I get them?

Which one, Trump or Piers? Both are indeed incredible tits.

[Maithanet]

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

Depends. If the Supreme Court puts an end to political gerrymandering, then you can do without the governorships. I'd pin my hopes on Dems somehow getting a hold of the senate (as the one chamber) anyway. Otherwise I think you might be better off in the long run to pick up Governorships (and state assemblies) to level the playing field or beat the GOP with its own weapons. Afterall it's less than 3 years (even if it feels like an eternity) left with Trump, possibly even less, here's hoping that Muller sends Kushner, Donnie "Fatso", and Donnie Jr. to prison.

The Supreme Court is 100% not going to "abolish" gerrymandering, if that is even possible.  The Democrats in the Wisconsin case are hoping that the SC rules that the most egregious maps be thrown out, and establish a standard which limits gerrymandering for political gain.  But it's a certainty that controlling state legislatures and governorships will help politicians draw the political boundaries in 2020 and into the future. 

And I left out the Senate because it is the least likely.  If Democrats can take the Senate, it is almost assured that they also do well in the House and governorships.  Because to take the senate they have to win at least 11 of the following 12 senate seats:  TN, AZ, NV, ID, WV, ND, MT, MO, FL, OH, PA and MI.  Do that and I'm sure they're also doing pretty good in House Races and governorships. 

[S John]

24 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Lovett or Leave It had a bit on her (I think upcoming) interview on Big Brother. It's just ... it's insane. She's a reality TV star who worked at the White House for a reality TV President and is now talking about it the fucked up situation there to the fucking host of Big Brother, a reality TV show she returned to after working at the fucking White House.

It really is insane.  These tell all's though, I don't think they're worth the paper they are printed on.  Good fodder for speculation, but that's it.  Omarosa is a fame-chaser and has no credibility, imo.  Then I saw that Michael Wolff guy on Bill Mahr, and man, he did not leave me with a good impression.  Guy is a fucking worm.  Not sure if we'll ever get a credible tell-all out of this admin because it's full of scumbags and sycophants.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The Supreme Court is 100% not going to "abolish" gerrymandering, if that is even possible.  The Democrats in the Wisconsin case are hoping that the SC rules that the most egregious maps be thrown out, and establish a standard which limits gerrymandering for political gain.  But it's a certainty that controlling state legislatures and governorships will help politicians draw the political boundaries in 2020 and into the future. 

And I left out the Senate because it is the least likely.  If Democrats can take the Senate, it is almost assured that they also do well in the House and governorships.  Because to take the senate they have to win at least 11 of the following 12 senate seats:  TN, AZ, NV, ID, WV, ND, MT, MO, FL, OH, PA and MI.  Do that and I'm sure they're also doing pretty good in House Races and governorships. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the SC once rule that "racial gerrymandering" was not ok, so they've ruled against a specific type of gerrymandering. So it's not impossible for it to rule against that shenanigans with the electoral map. However I am not saying it's likely. But like I said, if the SC decides to do nothing about it, then the governorships hold more value than the House in the long the run (at least imo). Just hope for a better general election and try to undo most of Trump's damage in 2020 with redrawn districts.

[Maithanet]

Just now, Notone said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the SC once rule that "racial gerrymandering" was not ok, so they've ruled against a specific type of gerrymandering. So it's not impossible for it to rule against that shenanigans with the electoral map. However I am not saying it's likely. But like I said, if the SC decides to do nothing about it, then the governorships hold more value than the House in the long the run (at least imo). Just hope for a better general election and try to undo most of Trump's damage in 2020 with redrawn districts.

Race is a protected class, which requires stricter scrutiny than political affiliation.  So when the SC is deciding if a map is biased against black people, the standard of proof required is lower than a map that is biased against Democrats. 

In a previous case, Justice Kennedy said that while he didn't like gerrymandering for partisan reasons, he wasn't sure what standard could be applied to determine which maps were egregiously gerrymandered, and states definitely have the right to draw their own boundaries.  In the Wisconsin case, the Democrats argued that the map was so biased that a surge in Democratic support would make no difference, and that gerrymandering was serving to thwart democracy.  They came up with a mathematical formula that assessed the degree to which the maps did not match the will of the people, called the efficiency gap.  If the efficiency gap reaches a certain point, one party has more or less protected themselves from the voters.  However, exactly where an efficiency gap is too high and where it is acceptable is debatable, and Justice Roberts was very dismissive that the SC should be wading into an issue like that.  But we'll see if he gets outvoted.

[Shryke]

23 minutes ago, S John said:

It really is insane.  These tell all's though, I don't think they're worth the paper they are printed on.  Good fodder for speculation, but that's it.  Omarosa is a fame-chaser and has no credibility, imo.  Then I saw that Michael Wolff guy on Bill Mahr, and man, he did not leave me with a good impression.  Guy is a fucking worm.  Not sure if we'll ever get a credible tell-all out of this admin because it's full of scumbags and sycophants.  

Michael Wolff is kind of a scummy guy but nothing about his account is really lacking credibility, at least in the broad details, because it's all just confirmation of shit we already new. Just more sensational and with more on the record accounts.Which is likely to be true for Omarosa's book too. There's no shortage of accounts of shit from real journalists backing this shit up for the most part.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Which of the following 2018 election scenarios would you pick, given the choice?

Option 1:  Democrats pick up 28 house seats to gain control of the chamber, get a net zero in the Senate, flip 3 governorships (IL, ME, NM), but fail to flip FL, MI, OH, WI. 

Option 2:  Democrats pick up 18 house seats and net 0 senate seats, so Republicans continue to control both chambers.  Democrats do better in governor's races, flipping IL, ME, NM, NV, NH, FL, MI, and WI. 

Interesting question.  Based on your criteria though, it seems the question boils down to whether you want the Dems to retake the House, or retake governorships in FL, MI, WI, and maybe NV and OH (not clear on these two, and I'm omitting NH because there's only two seats anyway).  Let's count all five for simplicity.

The problem in this hypothetical is there are still many unknowns - the two most important of which being the outcome of GIll v. Whitford and the partisan makeup of each state's state legislature.  The Gill case will obviously have a direct effect on the redistricting of state legislative seats in Wisconsin, and if the efficiency gap is adopted as an acceptable standard to identify partisan gerrymandering by SCOTUS, that could have reverberations throughout the country.  For example, Ohio already has a redistricting amendment that received unanimous support in both chambers and will be up for a vote in the May primaries.  While it's questionable the amendment will significantly change the redistricting process - particularly due to the GOP holding near veto-proof majorities in both chambers - a favorable decision in Gill could very conceivably lead to further action by the Ohio legislature on their redistricting process.

In Nevada, the Dems control a significant majority in the Assembly (27-14), so the GOP's ability should be limited there.  Conversely, the GOP is close to veto-proof majorities in not just Ohio but also Florida and Michigan.  What does this look like in November - or more importantly after 2020?  Who knows...It should also be noted the governors of Florida and Ohio do not have veto-power on the redistricting of state legislative seats, which decreases their influence on the process - especially if there are prolonged court battles.  

All in all, I think regaining subpoena powers and the powers of the purse against the Trump administration significantly outweigh the unknown gains of flipping governors in those five states.  I think there's considerable possibility of redistricting changes in both Ohio and Wisconsin plus Nevada has the Assembly firewall.  Thus, the only sure thing you're talking about is the governor's veto power in Florida and Michigan.  Since both states had unified GOP government following the 2010 census, it's very unlikely the Dems will lose further seats - plus how many seats they would gain with a Democratic governor would be limited if the state legislatures of both states remain so red.  With all that in mind, it actually seems like a no brainer to take the House.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

In addition, the current house majority is 238-193.  If that margin is reduced to just a few votes, Paul Ryan (or whoever is Speaker) is going to have a helluva time getting anything passed.  Hell, even the tax bill had 12 Republican defections, and that was a Republican wet dream. 

Defections become very rare once numbers are tight. When members can cross the floor on an issue but still have law pass, they get two bites of the cherry: they get to look high and mighty while also getting the legislation passed.

This is why supposedly brave senators like McCain nonetheless follow the status quo in most matters; once their votes will actually sink a bill their courage fades. A one-seat Republican majority would make Paul Ryan suddenly seem like the strongest leader ever as almost all matters would pass unanimously in his party.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

All in all, I think regaining subpoena powers and the powers of the purse against the Trump administration significantly outweigh the unknown gains of flipping governors in those five states. 

This. There are far too many unknowns to make the gubernatorial gains outweigh regaining subpoena powers, and moreover, retaking the latter could lead to electoral gains that would not be realized by retaking three more governors' offices. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

If redistricting is your priority, the governorships are much more important.  Governor's have veto power over redistricting maps, so they can make sure that the maps are reasonable.  While I have no doubt that the Republicans will find something creatively terrible to do with reconciliation, it's pretty unlikely that they could get something about redistricting under that scrutiny unless they just abolish the filibuster altogether. 

In addition, the current house majority is 238-193.  If that margin is reduced to just a few votes, Paul Ryan (or whoever is Speaker) is going to have a helluva time getting anything passed.  Hell, even the tax bill had 12 Republican defections, and that was a Republican wet dream. 

No, I'm worried about 'Vote Reform'

[denstorebog]

30 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Defections become very rare once numbers are tight. When members can cross the floor on an issue but still have law pass, they get two bites of the cherry: they get to look high and mighty while also getting the legislation passed.

This is why supposedly brave senators like McCain nonetheless follow the status quo in most matters; once their votes will actually sink a bill their courage fades. A one-seat Republican majority would make Paul Ryan suddenly seem like the strongest leader ever as almost all matters would pass unanimously in his party.

Man, there's a big difference between keeping 51 out of 51 senators in line and keeping 216 out of 220 reps in line. Not only because of the numbers, but because you also have a lot more batshit lunatics and weird caucuses in the House.

EDIT: To be honest, that's more of a gut feeling than based on data. Could be interesting to compare how often slim majority parties failed to muster majorities on big issues compared to in the Senate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Omarosa is planning a tell-all book about the White House.

Friends of Trump are lining up to take shots at her.

Piers Morgan is now saying she offered to have sex with him in exchange for his support on Celebrity Apprentice.

Break out the popcorn!

 

What could go wrong when a bunch of shameless attention seekers have a public food fight? 

[The Anti-Targ]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What could go wrong when a bunch of shameless attention seekers have a public food fight? 

The problem is, the public keeps feeding them.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Man, there's a big difference between keeping 51 out of 51 senators in line and keeping 216 out of 220 reps in line. Not only because of the numbers, but because you also have a lot more batshit lunatics and weird caucuses in the House.

EDIT: To be honest, that's more of a gut feeling than based on data. Could be interesting to compare how often slim majority parties failed to muster majorities on big issues compared to in the Senate.

Problem there is there's not much recent data on slim majorities in the House to compare.  Even upping the threshold to the majority holding at least 230 seats (or about 53%), the last time a House majority had fewer was during Dubya's first term (the GOP House had similarly slim majorities in Clinton's second term, but that's a much less reliable comparison because the type of votes an opposition House brings to the floor under divided government are fundamentally different than a House majority under unified government).

Looking at Dubya's first term, it's hard to make any broad conclusions because he basically abandoned any domestic agenda following 9/11 and especially as the administration began selling the Iraq War.  One could certainly argue that pre-9/11, Bush pursued a much more bipartisan strategy than we've seen since on his major initiatives - namely No Child Left Behind and his tax cuts, the latter of which saw minimal but crucial support among Democrats even in the House.

Generally, it is true that as an institution the House has more agenda-setting powers - importantly negative agenda-setting power, or preventing undesirable legislation from the floor.  However, there is empirical evidence that the Senate majority's negative agenda control is effectively analogous to the House's despite lacking the same formal mechanisms.

Practically, none of this really matters.  Trump's legislative agenda is functionally dormant until a potential reelection outside of budget disputes.  I suppose it's possible a GOP Congress would use reconciliation to try and push through legislation on entitlements (which would be incredibly stupid, electorally) or infrastructure (which I'm not even sure the administration actually cares about, let alone Trump himself or the GOP Congress), but it's very unlikely.  The only remaining possibility I can think of is the GOP kicks the can down the road again on DACA.

The presidential election is going to dominate attention by next summer, even without the potential of a big-name primary challenge for Trump, which is quite possible.  In all likelihood, the only major legislation that will be considered in Congress post-midterm will be they have to raise the debt ceiling again next March, and the next budget battle which will happen late next year and/or early 2020, on the eve of primary season.  And in terms of budget battles, as we just saw the GOP already had to rely on Democratic support to get any agreement to the president's desk.  Stands to reason this will only be exacerbated if the GOP House has a very slim majority.

What does matter in terms of governing during the 18-month presidential election season is how discretionary spending of agencies is allocated.  This is controlled by the committee system - Appropriations and the relevant committee that has jurisdiction overseeing agency budget requests.  This is a binary though; only committee control matters, which is another reason why retaking the majority in the House is desirable.

[Yukle]

22 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The presidential election is going to dominate attention by next summer, even without the potential of a big-name primary challenge for Trump, which is quite possible.  In all likelihood, the only major legislation that will be considered in Congress post-midterm will be they have to raise the debt ceiling again next March, and the next budget battle which will happen late next year and/or early 2020, on the eve of primary season.  And in terms of budget battles, as we just saw the GOP already had to rely on Democratic support to get any agreement to the president's desk.  Stands to reason this will only be exacerbated if the GOP House has a very slim majority.

This assumes that the current standing orders within the Senate are maintained, and there is no guarantee that they will. I can see Trump coaxing the Senate into voting away all of their normal conventions, just as was the case for 60-vote majorities needed to confirm executive or judicial appointments.

In another means of attack, I am also expecting that Trump will continue to fire all of Mueller's overseers and his investigation will soon be completely toothless.

Similarly, I think we can expect Republican states to start placing formal requirements on being on the ballot for presidency. This would allow them to block Democratic candidates from standing in their states, giving free wins to Trump. This was first pitched as pie-in-the-sky ideas from Democratic lawmakers who mused over making it a formal requirement that all candidates release their tax returns before being allowed on the ballot. I can easily see the Republicans doing the same in their own way, only in reality, not just thinking about it.