US Politics: March Madness

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh totally- for the audience at home. By yes this is a no win situation. He doesn’t pay. He doesn’t listen to his lawyers and he is brand toxic. 

100% this. Why would any reputable firm take on a client who won’t pay, listen or tell you the truth in private? Hell, does Trump even know when he’s lying at this point? I can’t say for sure. The only lawyers who will work with him at this point are second rate and/or inexperienced.

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well, if you want to get into the less prestigious, but likely highly lucrative business of selling cheap, probably scam-y, legal services to the kind of people that listen to Alex Jones or go to CPAC, it's probably a good business move.

There's a lot of money to fleece from gullible right-wingers if you have the stomach for it.

Eh, I think that’s true only if you think you can win. Otherwise you’re destroying your career.

[Kalbear]

So Trump sucked against Russia, announced tariffs which drove stock prices down, and has multiple women claiming he had an affair with them while his wife was pregnant. Oh, and he's gotten rid of a number of high profile cabinet members and replaced them with war hawks.

Naturally, he's at 40.7% approval and has stayed that way for the last two months, which for him is an all-time high. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

100% this. Why would any reputable firm take on a client who won’t pay, listen or tell you the truth in private? Hell, does Trump even know when he’s lying at this point? I can’t say for sure. The only lawyers who will work with him at this point are second rate and/or inexperienced.

Eh, I think that’s true only if you think you can win. Otherwise you’re destroying your career.

It is telling that Ted Olson has said no.  Paul Clement won't do it either.  

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So Trump sucked against Russia, announced tariffs which drove stock prices down, and has multiple women claiming he had an affair with them while his wife was pregnant. Oh, and he's gotten rid of a number of high profile cabinet members and replaced them with war hawks.

Naturally, he's at 40.7% approval and has stayed that way for the last two months, which for him is an all-time high. 

The economy is doing well, unemployment is low, the worst effects of his administration either aren't visible or directly affecting most of his supporters, and people are already accustomed to the government not solving pressing needs like the opioid epidemic.

It was in the high 30s during the health care debate, but since that failed (though don't forget the tax bill did end the mandate) and his supporters didn't lose their coverage, the ones that had lost faith forgot about it. It probably won't go down again until there's a new attempt at repeal, or cutting Social Security or Medicare. Or until the economy tanks, a lot of soldiers get killed, or there's a major crisis affecting many voters.

If Trump just stopped tweeting, and stopped being so overly racist and stupid, the day after the election he'd easily be above 50% right now.

[Shryke]

30 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Each state has its own code, but the NYRPC is found here.  As an admitted NY attorney, I am an officer of the court (see preamble, at 1).   Under the NYRPC, I have an ethical duty to ensure that the information that I present to the Court is true.  See Rule 3.3.  Note that this obligation trumps (excuse the pun) my obligation to keep my client's confidences.  See also Rule 1.16 regarding "unworthy" clients.

Yeah, that sounds like the same as what I was reading from another state (or maybe it was DC? Can't remember off the top of my head)

Which makes you wonder how the fuck you could represent Trump at all considering he's a like pathological liar.

[IamMe90]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, that sounds like the same as what I was reading from another state (or maybe it was DC? Can't remember off the top of my head)

Which makes you wonder how the fuck you could represent Trump at all considering he's a like pathological liar.

As I understand it, the ethical rules attorneys must follow wouldn't prohibit an attorney from representing a client with an (admittedly overt) tendency or demonstrated history of lying, but rather would only require one to rectify any specific breaches in candor to the court by a client of which an attorney becomes aware. I would speculate from my experience (although I am not an attorney myself) that the standard for what constitutes an attorney actually "being aware" of such a breach is pretty high. That is, in order to violate his/her client's confidence, an attorney probably must have a lot more than an intuition or a pretty good idea that a client isn't being candid with the court, but rather concrete and specific evidence of such. I think there would also be an element of intention that would distinguish deliberate dishonest from mere ignorance or forgetfulness, although I'm not sure about that.

[Leofric]

15 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, that sounds like the same as what I was reading from another state (or maybe it was DC? Can't remember off the top of my head)

Which makes you wonder how the fuck you could represent Trump at all considering he's a like pathological liar.

I would assume you settle things out of court, pay people off and get them to sign NDAs and basically do anything you can to keep Trump from ever testifying in court or under oath.  

[Fragile Bird]

My brother knew a lawyer (a classmate?) who built a house and then when it was finished underpaid the builder by $40k. Told him, I’m a lawyer, take me to court and I’ll just tell them how you did shitty work. Just like Trump.

[DanteGabriel]

30 minutes ago, Leofric said:

I would assume you settle things out of court, pay people off and get them to sign NDAs and basically do anything you can to keep Trump from ever testifying in court or under oath.  

It seems likely that Dowd quit because he wanted to keep Trump from sitting down to questions with Mueller, and Trump wants to testify. After all, when you've made it 70 years as a shockingly ignorant dumbass who's been protected by corrupt culture, family money, and ratfuckers like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone all your life, you must be smarter than the rest of the world, and consequences are just a thing that happens to other people.

[Martell Spy]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

We invaded Iraq for its oil.

Your syrup isn’t safe!

Trump lied and trees died.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

My brother knew a lawyer (a classmate?) who built a house and then when it was finished underpaid the builder by $40k. Told him, I’m a lawyer, take me to court and I’ll just tell them how you did shitty work. Just like Trump.

Heh, my father stopped practicing law in large part because he found it hard to be a decent person in a den of snakes. That’s saying something considering my dad is not the most moral person in the world.

[Yukle]

7 hours ago, Fez said:

In the past 12 elections, Democrats have won the House vote only three times: 2006, 2008, and 2012. And in two out of those three times, Democrats had a House majority after the election (and remember, people talk about the 2010 gerrymander, but there are a lot of states that were already gerrymandered from 2000). The one exception was the 2012 election, where they won the House vote by 1.4% (Less than Obama's 3.9% win) but only ended up with 201 seats (their high-water mark of the past 8 years). The 17th lowest margin of victory by a Republican was 6.1%, which added to 1.4% is 7.5% and is the reason analysts say Democrats need a 7-8% overall margin to win the House. 

A difference in scale makes a difference in kind. The advent of computer algorithms that can so precisely and so effectively carve out districts has only existed recently, and only during a period when the Republicans have controlled the house.

Gerrymandering now is on a scale so vastly more effective than it ever was that it doesn't even come close to even recent history. The entire point of the modelling is to make it essentially impossible for the Democrats to ever win ever again. And that is very difficult to overcome.

Think of it like this: the only reason that the Democrats have any chance whatsoever is because not all states have corrupted borders. If every single state was drawn by Republicans using the new algorithm techniques - which they were lucky enough to have at a time that coincided with their control of state houses - the Democrats would never win a majority ever again!

[Fragile Bird]

Another bad day in the market, with the Nasdaq down almost 3%, 212 points, closing just above 7,000, and the Dow down 345 points.

I shouldn't laugh, I'm too close to retiring, but we may be witnessing the unwinding of a big chunk of the Trump rally. I need to find the post, but I said back in February the Dow could go down to about 23,500 if support levels are to be believed. We are now at 23,857, down from a high of 26,616 back at the end of January. That's down 2,759, just over 10%, so we are now in correction territory.

The Dow closed at 18,332 on election day in 2016 so if we are close to the end of the correction that would mean the market rose about 30% since election day. We have 30% increases in strong markets over similar time periods every now and then, but what has been unusual is this has been part of a steady increase since 2009 with no bear markets. Although I am somewhat doubtful we'll see a bear market, down 20% to 21,293, I am kind of thinking we will see choppiness for a while yet. The huge increase to 26,000+ was just ludicrous, and I attribute that to the fact that consumers jumped back into the market after being afraid for years. Always seen as an indicator of the end of a bull market, or at least a respite.

When the market drops 1,100 points over Thursday and Friday, then rises over 600 on Monday but falls 345 on Tuesday, you can see we have a confused market, to say the least. I think yesterday's rally made fund managers decide to sell into a rally a day or two early at quarter end and take profit, and nervous consumers decide to sell out.

[Shryke]

There's been a lot of comments saying Trump tying his "success" to the value of the stock market was a stupid and risky move exactly because you never know when it could turn on you.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Another bad day in the market, with the Nasdaq down almost 3%, 212 points, closing just above 7,000, and the Dow down 345 points.

I shouldn't laugh, I'm too close to retiring, but we may be witnessing the unwinding of a big chunk of the Trump rally. I need to find the post, but I said back in February the Dow could go down to about 23,500 if support levels are to be believed. We are now at 23,857, down from a high of 26,616 back at the end of January. That's down 2,759, just over 10%, so we are now in correction territory.

The Dow closed at 18,332 on election day in 2016 so if we are close to the end of the correction that would mean the market rose about 30% since election day. We have 30% increases in strong markets over similar time periods every now and then, but what has been unusual is this has been part of a steady increase since 2009 with no bear markets. Although I am somewhat doubtful we'll see a bear market, down 20% to 21,293, I am kind of thinking we will see choppiness for a while yet. The huge increase to 26,000+ was just ludicrous, and I attribute that to the fact that consumers jumped back into the market after being afraid for years. Always seen as an indicator of the end of a bull market, or at least a respite.

When the market drops 1,100 points over Thursday and Friday, then rises over 600 on Monday but falls 345 on Tuesday, you can see we have a confused market, to say the least. I think yesterday's rally made fund managers decide to sell into a rally a day or two early at quarter end and take profit, and nervous consumers decide to sell out.

Damn that happened quick. It was doing fine all day and then cratered out in the last hour or so of trading. 

Also, the post you're looking for is at the bottom of the page:

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It seems likely that Dowd quit because he wanted to keep Trump from sitting down to questions with Mueller, and Trump wants to testify. 

I think it's certainly true that part of the motivation for resigning was a difference of opinion in the legal strategy to pursue, but that can't be it. I'm guess that Dowd was seeing Trump decline rapidly and wanted to jump off the ship before in completely sank. One that's really troubling are the rumors of Trump privately saying that no, he didn't actually make those comments on the Access Hollywood tap.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's certainly true that part of the motivation for resigning was a difference of opinion in the legal strategy to pursue, but that can't be it. I'm guess that Dowd was seeing Trump decline rapidly and wanted to jump off the ship before in completely sank. One that's really troubling are the rumors of Trump privately saying that no, he didn't actually make those comments on the Access Hollywood tap.

Eh. The idea that Trump is declining is projection and wishful thinking, I think.

[Ormond]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. The idea that Trump is declining is projection and wishful thinking, I think.

To be nitpicky: Wishful thinking is a good possibility. But if you accuse Tywin of "projection" you are saying you believe that Tywin thinks, consciously or unconsciously, that he is "declining" himself, because projection is attributing your own characteristics to someone else:

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

A difference in scale makes a difference in kind. The advent of computer algorithms that can so precisely and so effectively carve out districts has only existed recently, and only during a period when the Republicans have controlled the house.

Gerrymandering now is on a scale so vastly more effective than it ever was that it doesn't even come close to even recent history. The entire point of the modelling is to make it essentially impossible for the Democrats to ever win ever again. And that is very difficult to overcome.

Think of it like this: the only reason that the Democrats have any chance whatsoever is because not all states have corrupted borders. If every single state was drawn by Republicans using the new algorithm techniques - which they were lucky enough to have at a time that coincided with their control of state houses - the Democrats would never win a majority ever again!

Computer algorithims don't account for changes in voter preferences, and can still cause gerrymanders to backfire pretty badly, which is likely going to happen in some of the districts in VA and TX this year.

Yes, if Republicans drew every map Democrats would never win; but that's a meaningless statement. They didn't draw every map, and likewise if Democrats drew every map, Republicans would never win (the Maryland gerrymander is as devious as any Republican map).

[DMC]

So maybe I missed this before, but looks like RCP just released their Senate and House maps for the 2018 elections.  Things are heating up sports fans!  One caveat - I think their rollout still might be screwy based on the fact Donnelly (IN), Nelson (FL), and Manchin's (WV) seats are all listed as open and see no reason why they should be.  

6 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'd just like to say that we are very lucky to have experts in their fields like dmc515 and Mlle.Zabzie contributing to this thread.  

Thanks - and right back atcha!

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I would also say that any estimate of how big a "wave" (blech) the democrats need to take control of the House simply must take PA into account.  If they aren't changing their estimate based on the new map, then any estimate they make just isn't credible.  Democrats could very realistically go from a 13-5 deficit in the state in 2016 to a 10-8 advantage without any crazy swings or huge upsets.  Democrats could pick up 12 seats in CA and PA alone. 

Yeah, and to be fair, the Brennan report did use the new PA map for their "Appendix 2" analysis.  And, again, it can't be emphasized enough that if the Dems retake the House, it will be on the back of picking up seats in (very) blue states - one's in which GOP gerrymandering has nothing to do with anything:

Quote

But while California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Virginia account for only a small percentage of Republican-held seats overall, they are home to a disproportionate share of vulnerable Republicans. According to the Cook Political Report, these five states are home to 38 percent of all the Republican-held seats that are truly in play in 2018.¹

Combine those five states with the new PA map and a strong showing in open seats, and that's how you take back the House even without necessarily a nationwide "Dem wave."  Also, as far as open seats go, just saw this:

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Naturally, he's at 40.7% approval and has stayed that way for the last two months

Yes, this is depressing.  As others noted, I still think his fate is tied to the economy, and consequently his numbers will plummet with a downturn, but it's hard to think anything else is going to significantly hurt (or help, for that matter) his approval at this point.

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

A difference in scale makes a difference in kind.

There's not much evidence that the 2010 gerrymandering has resulted in a "difference in kind" order of magnitude.  Record levels of GOP advantage compared to recent elections?  Sure, this can be seen in median-bias and median-seat of post-2010 elections.  But those numbers are hardly that much different than previous cycles.  Hell, returning to Abramowitz's generic ballot forecast - a model that treats all of the past 18 midterms equally - the only post-2010 midterm actually overestimated the GOP-gerrymandered House:

Quote

It is especially encouraging to note that the model’s forecast for the 2014 midterm election, a Republican gain of 18 seats, was very close to the actual GOP pickup of 13 seats. This is significant because the 2014 midterm election occurred after the post-2010 round of redistricting in which Republicans were able to redraw House district lines in many states. Despite this, the model actually slightly overestimated Republican seat gains in 2014. There is little reason to believe, therefore, that the model’s predictions for 2018 will be thrown off by the effects of post-2010 redistricting.

 

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Gerrymandering now is on a scale so vastly more effective than it ever was that it doesn't even come close to even recent history.

While there is good data on recent (as in post-WWII) elections, I don't know how you can possibly know this if we're counting the history gerrymandering.  I don't know it either, but I strongly suspect the Tammany Hall machines and the Jim Crow South had wanton disparities and unresponsiveness that would make the current crooks blush.  Remember, access to data goes both ways.  Even in somewhat recent history, but especially, say, a century ago or earlier, there was no mechanism for good government types to demonstrate and challenge disproportionate maps.  Nowadays, we have two states with a number of states with independent and/or "political appointee" commissions plus about six more that have been court "imposed" or "modified" (and this isn't counting the outstanding court cases or the new PA map).

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

Think of it like this: the only reason that the Democrats have any chance whatsoever is because not all states have corrupted borders.

Well, it's also because many Democratic-leaning states gerrymander themselves - the Brennan report highlights Maryland in particular, but if you look at Appendix 1, even Minnesota (which was "court-imposed") or Washington ("political appointee commission") have levels of unresponsiveness easily rivaling most GOP-gerrymandered states.