Jump to content

US Politics: Borrow And Spend Conservatism Marches On


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Yukle said:

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.

If the GOP Senate refused to abolish the (legislative) filibuster after Trump was elected, they're not gonna after the midterms.  Maybe if he's reelected.

19 minutes ago, Yukle said:

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.

This emphasizes the importance of retaking the House.

21 minutes ago, Yukle said:

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. 

Not sure what you mean here.  Do you think the GOP will entirely block Democratic presidential candidates from the general election ballot in certain states?  If so, I strongly disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Not sure what you mean here.  Do you think the GOP will entirely block Democratic presidential candidates from the general election ballot in certain states?  If so, I strongly disagree.

Yes, or I think that they will put politically damaging requirements on them. For instance, they might require that candidates also receive the permission of a state legislature, thereby requiring them to accede to demands of their state.

I really wouldn't put faith in them not doing it simply because it's wrong or because it will appall voters. Voter suppression and gerrymandering also should cause voters to riot but they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I really wouldn't put faith in them not doing it simply because it's wrong or because it will appall voters. Voter suppression and gerrymandering also should cause voters to riot but they don't.

They're not going to do it because it's unconstitutional and even the most conservative court in the country would strike it down.  Not to mention, yes, doing so would cause far greater voter outrage than gerrymandering (which has existed since the ratification) or the current efforts at voter suppression.  You're talking about something even the South didn't try during Jim Crow.  In part because it doesn't matter - in the states most likely to try this, Trump is going to win anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

They're not going to do it because it's unconstitutional and even the most conservative court in the country would strike it down...

Is it? There's nothing preventing it.

Making profit from being in a position of power is explicitly unconstitutional and Trump is doing it. Nothing is happening about it. Therefore, they can really do what they like.

As for the fact Trump will win certain states - sure, but think further ahead. Why not rig it so you never lose a state again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

I wouldn't be so sure in the House. Boehner literally quit because the caucus there is ungovernable. They are the pre-Trump. His Johns the Baptist. The people who are high on their own supply finally in charge. And the result is a government that can't function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

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.

The Senate is not gonna do shit for Trump. They dropped the filibuster for judicial appointments so they could complete their decades-long plan for packing the courts and that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The Senate is not gonna do shit for Trump. They dropped the filibuster for judicial appointments so they could complete their decades-long plan for packing the courts and that's it.

They also passed tax cuts that included clauses specifically designed for him and waved through his widely incompetent executive appointments. The worst of which was the global-warming-denialist who heads the EPA and an idiot leading education.

To say nothing of the fact that Trump is still in office! They impeached Clinton for less than this. They'd never, no matter what he does, impeach him and the Senate would not convict him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

They also passed tax cuts that included clauses specifically designed for him and waved through his widely incompetent executive appointments. The worst of which was the global-warming-denialist who heads the EPA and an idiot leading education.

 

Is he a denier? I thought I saw something recently that said he claimed global warming was a good thing. So surely he's not a denier of global warming, possibly more like delluded about the effects of global warming.

But then again, if global warming is going to lead to mass drownings of minorities and poor people around the world, maybe that's what he means by it being a "good thing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

Is it? There's nothing preventing it.

Yes, there is.  It plainly would violate the EPC and arguably the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Not to mention arguments to be made on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, nor to mention it likely violates many if not most state constitutions (albeit these are more pliable in many cases).  The difference with current voting suppression efforts - from voter ID laws to restrictions for ex-cons to registration requirements to early voting, etc. - is that all of these are applied universally to all citizens, even if obviously disproportionately affecting a targeted subgroup of voters.  What you're proposing is an unequal standard to ballot access for presidential candidates based on party affiliation.  Eugene Debs ran and received over 3 percent of the vote in the 1920 presidential election as the Socialist Party nominee while he was in federal prison and stripped of his citizenship.  It is decidedly a horse of a different color.

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

As for the fact Trump will win certain states - sure, but think further ahead. Why not rig it so you never lose a state again?

Because that's ignorant of how parties shift.  Parties are coalitions of voters, they have no inherent beliefs or goals other to win elections.  And those coalitions are constantly fluid.  Major realignments are seldom, but also unpredictable.  Who knows what coalition constitutes the Democratic or Republican parties in twenty years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

They also passed tax cuts that included clauses specifically designed for him and waved through his widely incompetent executive appointments. The worst of which was the global-warming-denialist who heads the EPA and an idiot leading education.

To say nothing of the fact that Trump is still in office! They impeached Clinton for less than this. They'd never, no matter what he does, impeach him and the Senate would not convict him.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything I said?

To them Trump is a rubber stamp. They keep him happy and he packs the courts for them, guts the regulatory state and the social safety net and signs the tax cut bills he wants. And in return they pay him a pittance in tribute.

They are not gonna chuck away the filibuster on his say so. Why would they? What's in it for them? They don't respect him, they are just using him and trying to stay just enough on his good side so they can keep getting elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Apparently some folks think there are hidden images of sperm in Obama's presidential portrait, because something, something.

From what I read (which admittedly wasn't much because further reading just makes you increasingly stupid), there was more outrage yesterday over Michelle's portrait than Barack's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another victory today for Dems in local elections:

Quote

For the third Florida bellwether election in a row, the Republican candidate lost to the Democrat, giving activists and elites in both parties a sense that the GOP’s political grip is slipping in the nation’s largest swing state heading into President Donald Trump’s first midterm election.

Aside from her big 7.4 percentage-point win, what made Margaret Good’s victory Tuesday night over Republican James Buchanan so significant was that it took place in Florida’s 72nd House District. It had been held by a Republican in Sarasota County, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by 12,000, or about 10 percentage points. Buchanan, the son of local Congressman Vern Buchanan, also had an advantage in name ID.

And Trump had carried the district by 4.6 percentage points

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones in South Georgia and Oklahoma didn't go nearly as well, but I think that's the only way they could have reasonably expected those two to go. And a Vox article points out that Republican officials are becoming leery of running special elections at all. Some places are allowing seats to remain empty, others have resigning Republicans stay in until the normal election cycle is due.

Quote

According to an extremely useful comprehensive spreadsheet compiled by Daily Kos, across 70 special elections in 2017, Democrats ran 10 points ahead of Clinton and 7 points ahead of Obama’s 2012 results. Those numbers have accelerated into 2018. Across 12 races, Democrats are running 23 points ahead of Clinton and 8 points ahead of Obama.


Historically speaking, special election results usually are somewhat predictive of midterm general election outcomes, though I don’t think anyone believes it’s realistic for Democrats to obtain a nationwide 23-point swing relative to Clinton’s numbers.

Meanwhile, the special elections are already having real-world impact.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has decided to leave a number of formerly GOP-held seats vacant rather than schedule special elections his party might lose, national Republicans are pushing the panic button on an upcoming special House election in Pennsylvania, and GOP leadership is letting scandal-plagued Rep. Blake Farenthold stick around in his seat rather than risk a special election.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

The ones in South Georgia and Oklahoma didn't go nearly as well, but I think that's the only way they could have reasonably expected those two to go.

Yeah looking at the recent history of both districts, those were never going to be competitive.

17 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Some places are allowing seats to remain empty, others have resigning Republicans stay in until the normal election cycle is due.

Sounds like the best strategy possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one to spike the football, but if the Trump era has taught us anything it's that we should.  I can't help but mention that Charlie Cook in his most recent op-ed sounded strikingly like I did last week in my argument with @Kalbear as it related to the economy.  Used the exact same data from the Quinnipiac poll - with reservations - and everything:

Quote

A newer Quinnipiac University poll (Feb. 2-5) found that 70 percent rated the state of the nation’s economy as either excellent or good, up from 66 percent in January, 63 percent in December, and 58 percent in November. When asked whom they believe to be more responsible for the current state of the economy, 48 percent chose Trump, and 41 percent said Obama. The two were tied on this question in last month’s poll.

I know as well as anyone the dangers in comparing results from nonidentical questions asked by different pollsters and, to be honest, have never been the biggest fan of Quinnipiac’s polling, but I do believe that this is an important dynamic to watch in the coming months. It should be added that in this Quinnipiac poll, even with this increased optimism about the economy and more credit given to Trump—and his job rating ticking up to 40 percent—the Republican Party’s favorable ratings were still minus-19 points (32 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), compared to minus-12 for Democrats (35 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable). By a 9-point margin, 49 to 40 percent, Americans preferred Democrats to control the House.

 

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...