u.s. politics: abortive cure for labor pains

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Some people said this, but it was never "everyone." And more to the point, I was replying to a post where it was claimed "everyone" on the thread believed this "over the past year", not back in 2012.

Fair enough. I was just commenting that you could get the impression from reading these threads over the years that the Democrats would not be able to retake the House. 

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

People were saying that only with the unstated assumption that Democrats would not have a massive wave election.

I don't remember that caveat.  And doesn't that render any such prediction useless?  "The Democrats will never win the House unless they have a surge in support such that they do?" 

[Sivin]

I concede the point that my experience with rampant inflation is wanting. 

That being said, the only Democratic institutions left in North America simply cannot allow a fascist to dictate the revision of longstanding agreements on a whim.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

People were saying that only with the unstated assumption that Democrats would not have a massive wave election.

The wave hasn't happened yet and nothing is certain.  The gerrymandering decisions are good, but still, there is much possibility for trouble.  Nevada is having issues according to Jon Ralston:

Quote

But on the eve of filing for office opening Monday, the blue wave seems less certain.

The party’s registration advantage has shrunk by 30 percent since November, a developing gubernatorial primary bloodbath could destroy the Democratic chances to recapture the state’s most important office for the first time in 20 years and Heller has started a romance with the president that has given him the upper hand against Tarkanian.

What’s more, the Democrats have lost Rep. Ruben Kihuen to a sexual harassment scandal, leaving them with a multi-way primary in a seat they could lose; they do not exactly have a scintillating slate of candidates for constitutional offices that are all held by Republicans; and they have yet to announce candidates in two open state Senate seats that have legitimate GOP contenders and could determine control of the upper house.

If I were a Democrat these days, I’d be dreaming less of a blue wave in November than having a recurring nightmare of the last off-year election that had one of the bigger red waves in Nevada history.

I find this worrisome. 

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/democrats-no-longer-look-like-a-good-bet-to-sweep-in-november

[GAROVORKIN]

29 minutes ago, Shryke said:

People were saying that only with the unstated assumption that Democrats would not have a massive wave election.

There is no guarantee that any of that will happen. The only things the Democrats have to offer  the voters is alot empty rhetoric and wind from from above . They've got no definitive  platform or programs.  Their main agenda  of opposing Trump isn't something that get them back in the White House or back in control of the House and Senate.  Criticizing and calling the Trump Tax plan crumbs and having nothing to offer as an alternative to the voters   was from a PR point of view a bad move .  This makes the Democrats look like a bunch arrogant elitists'  and keep in mind that they are as wealthy as their Republican counterparts  which the begs  th question of how  can they claim to speak for the working class when they to  are members of the wealth elite  ?  Im rather doubtful that they will make any serious gains in  the midterm elections. 

[Jace, Extat]

One often finds the lack of self-awareniss shocking to the extreme.

[Shryke]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't remember that caveat.  And doesn't that render any such prediction useless?  "The Democrats will never win the House unless they have a surge in support such that they do?" 

That's why I said unstated. But it is the assumption of any prediction about gerrymandering and elections. Which is super obvious when you consider edges cases. If Democrats get 90% of the vote in an election, they will win the House no matter how badly everything is gerrymandered. So when anyone says "The Democrats have no chance of taking back the House" the unstated parameters of this prediction are "assuming vote numbers stay within certain margins". This doesn't make the predictions useless, it just means they are conditional, like any prediction.

The only reason the Democrats look like they are in a position to retake the House this year is because there seems to be a ridiculously large Democratic surge happening. Something which no one was predicting a few years back.

You want a similar situation, look at Alabama. "Alabama will never elect a Democrat to the Senate" is a very solid prediction based on the assumptions that a huge Democratic wave in Alabama won't happen and that the Republican party would never nominate a known pedophile. Which are good assumptions 99% of the time.

[Fragile Bird]

11 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I would bet no such thing. In large part because Trump's ability to "pull out" of NAFTA is extremely suspect. NAFTA was ratified by Congress and most of it's provisions are standing law in the US. Which Trump can't repeal just by saying so. You'd basically end up with some insane sorta-NAFTA where the US is officially not part of NAFTA but is still forced to obey almost all the rules of NAFTA.

And if there's one thing the last year should have taught you it's that what Trump says in his populist moron rantings has basically no effect on what Congress actually does. And Congress as far as anything we've ever seen has no interest in Trump's idiot-populist economic bullshit.

Uncertainty on the issue would certainly be bad for Canada, as it already is, but the NAFTA negotiations are a lot more of a clusterfuck then they are some place where Trump holds all the power and that blunts the effect on the Canadian economy.

I am not so sanguine as you are, Shryke.

The legal opinions are split on what Trump can and cannot do. While the US constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations", the legal opinion is that Trump can sign an executive order to cancel NAFTA without the approval of Congress. He already has an executive order prepared, and he was going to sign it to force a new deal to be negotiated within the 6 month notice period. Just ask Dreamers how well that's working out for them. 

Yes, Congress then has to revoke laws they passed when NAFTA came into force, but just cancelling the deal will throw this country into chaos. Talk to anyone in the financial community and they believe the Canadian dollar is currently way too high, that it should be closer to 70 cents than 80 cents. Move beyond just threatening to cancel NAFTA to actually officially giving notice to cancel NAFTA and we will be hit hard.

Trump is following through on his election promises. Don't kid yourself, he doesn't give a fuck about other Republicans and what they think, he's not a politician. He'll just stand up and rant on about how NAFTA is the worst trade deal in the history of the USA and people across the country will nod their heads and agree.

[Fragile Bird]

29 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Some people said this, but it was never "everyone." And more to the point, I was replying to a post where it was claimed "everyone" on the thread believed this "over the past year", not back in 2012.

Using "everyone' never means every single person who posts, you know that! But without a doubt, the strongest sentiment in this thread for years now has been the Democrats won't retake Congress.

[GAROVORKIN]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Using "everyone' never means every single person who posts, you know that! But without a doubt, the strongest sentiment in this thread for years now has been the Democrats won't retake Congress.

If the  current trends hold, it doesn't seem unlikely to happen.

[Zorral]

Life hasn't been easy for the guy who took this job -- one he was hired to do as an internationally recognized Russian-speaking expert on Russia -- to support his wife and kids and unwittingly became rethug public enemy numero uno as a Dem apparatchk-- a political football for country of which he's not even a citizen and where he doesn't live.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier

What I find particularly interesting is how much Mueller and Steele seem to have in common as to how they work: 

Quote

. . . .His longtime friend, who was part of a like-minded society at Oxford, said, “Almost all of us had come from less posh families, and suffered a bit from the impostor syndrome that made us doubt we belonged there, so we worked many times harder to prove ourselves.” He recalled Steele as an “astoundingly diligent” student with “huge integrity,” adding, “He just puts the bit in his teeth and charges the hill. He’s almost like a cyborg ....”

. . .  “He’s more low-key than Smiley”—the John le Carré character. But, he noted, whenever Steele took on a task “he was like a terrier with a bone—when something needs investigating, he applies the most intense intellect I’ve ever seen.”

. . . . A former senior officer recalls him as “a Russia-area expert whose knowledge I and others respected—he was very careful, and very savvy.” 

This is the sort of work that can end up rehabilitating a person's reputation, because it ends up being proved right.  This is all more important now to the intelligence communities since the orange soda jerk and co. have declared war upon them, particularly those of the US government.  It's also very important when the enemy's methods are those of denying, lying and bullying, and the enemy has no work ethic and no capacity to remain focused on anything except its own narcissism.

 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

That's why I said unstated. But it is the assumption of any prediction about gerrymandering and elections. Which is super obvious when you consider edges cases. If Democrats get 90% of the vote in an election, they will win the House no matter how badly everything is gerrymandered. So when anyone says "The Democrats have no chance of taking back the House" the unstated parameters of this prediction are "assuming vote numbers stay within certain margins". This doesn't make the predictions useless, it just means they are conditional, like any prediction.

The assumption many people made was that the 2006 democratic wave was approximately as strong as you could expect a democratic midterm wave to be.  The 2010 redistricting was designed specifically to withstand a wave like 2006.  And even after the PA and FL changes to the map, it's possible the Democrats would not retake the House with a 2006 level advantage in voter turnout.  Whether the Democrats can exceed their 2006 performance in 2018 remains to be seen. 

And I don't know what you're saying with "all predictions are conditional".  Predictions are either right or wrong.  I can predict that Germany will win the World Cup this year, that doesn't come with the unstated assumption "unless Brazil scores more goals than them in the final."  All predictions for the future have some uncertainty.  If the Democrats do retake the House in 2018, then the people who predicted it was impossible in 2010 were wrong.  It happens. 

[GAROVORKIN]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The assumption many people made was that the 2006 democratic wave was approximately as strong as you could expect a democratic midterm wave to be.  The 2010 redistricting was designed specifically to withstand a wave like 2006.  And even after the PA and FL changes to the map, it's possible the Democrats would not retake the House with a 2006 level advantage in voter turnout.  Whether the Democrats can exceed their 2006 performance in 2018 remains to be seen. 

And I don't know what you're saying with "all predictions are conditional".  Predictions are either right or wrong.  I can predict that Germany will win the World Cup this year, that doesn't come with the unstated assumption "unless Brazil scores more goals than them in the final."  All predictions for the future have some uncertainty.  If the Democrats do retake the House in 2018, then the people who predicted it was impossible in 2010 were wrong.  It happens. 

A midterm loss would put  the Democrats out in the political wilderness for the next 4 years at the very least. If this happens, then it means that Trump ( assuming Mueller investigation comes up empty) might just get a second term as President, meaning the continuation of his agenda.

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Fair enough. I was just commenting that you could get the impression from reading these threads over the years that the Democrats would not be able to retake the House. 

I don't remember that caveat.  And doesn't that render any such prediction useless?  "The Democrats will never win the House unless they have a surge in support such that they do?" 

Not exactly. The issue is that barring a fairly absurd amount of support, Democrats cannot win the House back. This isn't a surge from 45 to 50%, it's a surge from 45 to 60% or more, and only that will allow  Democrats to retake the House. 

And yeah, it's possible - but it's unlikely given that the economic factors are still decent and more importantly people's opinion of the economy is that it's going well. Typically you don't see those big kinds of shifts unless there are major economic or political breakdowns - Watergate, the great recession, etc. Otherwise you tend to see a backlash against the party in power, but not a great one. Now, normally said backlash would be enough to get a Democratic majority - we're talking maybe 52, 53% - but that won't cut it, not by a longshot. 

[GAROVORKIN]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not exactly. The issue is that barring a fairly absurd amount of support, Democrats cannot win the House back. This isn't a surge from 45 to 50%, it's a surge from 45 to 60% or more, and only that will allow  Democrats to retake the House. 

And yeah, it's possible - but it's unlikely given that the economic factors are still decent and more importantly people's opinion of the economy is that it's going well. Typically you don't see those big kinds of shifts unless there are major economic or political breakdowns - Watergate, the great recession, etc. Otherwise you tend to see a backlash against the party in power, but not a great one. Now, normally said backlash would be enough to get a Democratic majority - we're talking maybe 52, 53% - but that won't cut it, not by a longshot. 

When people have money to spend and feeling good, they tend  to vote for the status quo.

[Mexal]

23 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

There is no guarantee that any of that will happen. The only things the Democrats have to offer  the voters is alot empty rhetoric and wind from from above . They've got no definitive  platform or programs.  Their main agenda  of opposing Trump isn't something that get them back in the White House or back in control of the House and Senate.  Criticizing and calling the Trump Tax plan crumbs and having nothing to offer as an alternative to the voters   was from a PR point of view a bad move .  This makes the Democrats look like a bunch arrogant elitists'  and keep in mind that they are as wealthy as their Republican counterparts  which the begs  th question of how  can they claim to speak for the working class when they to  are members of the wealth elite  ?  Im rather doubtful that they will make any serious gains in  the midterm elections. 

I'm not sure this is entirely true. I do think opposing Trump and bringing some checks and balances to the government is a strong platform during a midterm election when the overwhelming argument is always the governing party. With scandal after scandal and terrible governing, I think that's more than enough to get people mobilized to vote in a mid term election. This won't be for a Presidential election but for a midterm? Absolutely. What do you think Republicans did in 2010 or Dems in 2006? The tax cuts may help the GOP but there is enough ability for the Dems to frame that as what it actually was; a cash grab for the wealthiest Americans and crumbs for the middle class. Dems don't need to introduce an alternative because they don't believe in alternative, all they need to do is stress that corporate tax cuts are permanent, that 85% of the money they saved is going back to the shareholders and that individual tax cuts will expire. Oh and they're raising the debt by $2.3T which will affect the economy and their kids long term.

As for a platform or programs, I do think the Dems have some. The issue is they control no single aspect of the government right now and they have no ability to get anything, even bi-partisan bills, introduced to the floor. And arguing those in a midterm doesn't really do anything when they know Trump will veto or the Senate won't take it up. 

What the Dems need to do is what Lamb is doing in PA and what Jones did in Alabama. Make the elections about the people in that state or district. Ignore the national rhetoric and appeal to the people at their level. That seems to be working, especially with the disillusionment of voters with the GOP.

At the end of the day, I can see why GOP would seemingly believe that the Dems aren't doing enough to take back the House or that it's unlikely. But every piece of evidence so far suggests the enthusiasm gap is massive (e.g Virginia, Alabama, TX early voting, every special election, PA-18 polling) and that will ultimately be the deciding factor. Dems hate Trump and the GOP a whole lot more than the GOP is loving what is happening.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am not so sanguine as you are, Shryke.

The legal opinions are split on what Trump can and cannot do. While the US constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations", the legal opinion is that Trump can sign an executive order to cancel NAFTA without the approval of Congress. He already has an executive order prepared, and he was going to sign it to force a new deal to be negotiated within the 6 month notice period. Just ask Dreamers how well that's working out for them. 

He can certainly do that, but in practical terms this does nothing, because most of the provisos of NAFTA aren't trade deals - they are US laws. It won't throw anything into chaos exactly; it'll simply be a weird business as usual where 'NAFTA' is cancelled and no new negotiations will take place, but all the other rules will stay. It'd be the worst of all worlds for the US. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, GAROVORKIN said:

When people have money to spend and feeling good, they  need to vote for the status quo.

Well, people aren't feeling good. They're feeling good about the economy but they're otherwise kind of pissed off in general. 

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

When people have money to spend and feeling good, they  need to vote for the status quo.

Voting for the status quo doesn't get people excited about voting in a midterm. That and a whole lot of Americans don't like the status quo right now (see approval ratings for Congress, Trump, etc)  .

[GAROVORKIN]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, people aren't feeling good. They're feeling good about the economy but they're otherwise kind of pissed off in general. 

A bit of typo in my comment ,  tend to vote not need.  

If not happiness , money can in some cases,  sooth anger to the point where it might be enough to help the Republicans stave off the Democrats comes the Midterms. 

 

[GAROVORKIN]

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Voting for the status quo doesn't get people excited about voting in a midterm. That and a whole lot of Americans don't like the status quo right now (see approval ratings for Congress, Trump, etc)  .

The problem is that the Democrats don't really have an alternative that excites the voters either and the disapproval of the Trump Tax plan will put in the voter minds the possibility that they Democrats are going raise taxes if they get in.  That may factor in their decision of who they will vote for.