Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nah

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That certainly seems like a plausible thing to happen in the case of voting irregularities, doesn't it? This isn't all that weird; after all, it's happened already this century with a much less partisan court. 

If it can be proven that voting irregularities occurred to a degree that could have altered the results of an election, then I'd actually be Ok with the results being invalidated and having a do over.  I just don't think there's any reason to believe that we'll see such irregularities in this election.  I also don't think mere allegations of irregularities is enough for courts, even Republican leaning courts, to overturn the results of an election just to keep the other side out of power.   We are approaching conspiracy level thinking here, if that is what you actually think will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two random, and somewhat divergent, thoughts on if the Dems take the House and the GOP takes the Senate that I don't think have been mentioned.

This effectively eliminates reconciliation as a legislative tool for the GOP (i.e. the bare majority in the Dem House will not pass the same bill as the bare majority in the GOP Senate).  Which in turn re-institutes the legislative filibuster in the Senate.  If the Dems were smart and played hardball (I know, big if), they could use this as leverage to demand McConnell return to some semblance of the blue slip norm on court appointments.  May take a government shutdown, but I think it's worth it.

Politically, there's pretty large silver linings for Trump if there's a Dem House and a GOP Senate.  He's had trouble getting much of anything through Congress outside of the tax bill with the majorities he had in his first two years; and the first two years are almost always the most productive legislatively, plus it's basically a certainty his majority in the House will dissipate.  At least with a Democratic House he can more credibly shift blame attribution to the Democrats, which may help him with Obama-Trump voters and districts.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait - you're saying that overturning the House majority is somehow bigger than overturning the POTUS election? Come on, man.

Ok, if the House majority comes down to hundreds of votes (which would mean a single district), it's plausible.  I just don't imagine that to be very plausible - or at least a very small likelihood.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, I think this is where you're just not imaginative enough.

Yep, and this is where I think you're far too imaginative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mudguard said:

If it can be proven that voting irregularities occurred to a degree that could have altered the results of an election, then I'd actually be Ok with the results being invalidated and having a do over.  I just don't think there's any reason to believe that we'll see such irregularities in this election. 

Most IT security experts disagree here. There's a lot to think that there are going to be some major issues in this election. 

Just now, Mudguard said:

I also don't think mere allegations of irregularities is enough for courts, even Republican leaning courts, to overturn the results of an election just to keep the other side out of power.   We are approaching conspiracy level thinking here, if that is what you actually think will happen.

Oh sure, there's nothing that says its going to happen no matter what. You're right, this is more conspiratorial than what WILL happen. That said, I think it would be a very easy thing for a foreign agent to very loudly add voting issues to our system, which would cause Republicans to cry foul and Democrats to not be able to do a whole lot about it other than say 'yep, we should...uh...redo', and then have another election in some states (though others would just go ahead and certify, which would be yet another problem). From Russia's perspective the goal isn't to keep Republicans in office; it's to maximize partisan divide and sow maximum chaos. 

 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

This effectively eliminates reconciliation as a legislative tool for the GOP (i.e. the bare majority in the Dem House will not pass the same bill as the bare majority in the GOP Senate).  Which in turn re-institutes the legislative filibuster in the Senate.  If the Dems were smart and played hardball (I know, big if), they could use this as leverage to demand McConnell return to some semblance of the blue slip norm on court appointments.  May take a government shutdown, but I think it's worth it.



I don't see how it institutes the filibuster at all. Trump is just going to veto anything that the House puts up for vote, senate or no. I don't see how this gives the House any power, especially not over court appointments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see how it institutes the filibuster at all. Trump is just going to veto anything that the House puts up for vote, senate or no. I don't see how this gives the House any power, especially not over court appointments.

Because Congress still has to keep the government running, which means they still have to pass some bills.  You guys don't seem to gather that budget battles constitute 90% of the legislative conflict in Congress over the past decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because Congress still has to keep the government running, which means they still have to pass some bills.  You guys don't seem to gather that budget battles constitute 90% of the legislative conflict in Congress over the past decade.

They have to pass the budget bill, but that's all. That's leverage of a sort, but it doesn't put the filibuster on the table any more or less than it was before. 

And Dems have learned pretty clearly that budget hostage isn't a winning strategy for anyone. Hell, Republicans have shut down the government for a few days twice now in  Trump's reign, and it didn't do a whole lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalbear said:

They have to pass the budget bill, but that's all. That's leverage of a sort, but it doesn't put the filibuster on the table any more or less than it was before.

Yes, it fundamentally does put the filibuster back on the table because the GOP can't revert to reconciliation to pass a budget.  That's very basic logic.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And Dems have learned pretty clearly that budget hostage isn't a winning strategy for anyone. Hell, Republicans have shut down the government for a few days twice now in  Trump's reign, and it didn't do a whole lot. 

I think what the recent shutdowns have shown is shutdowns don't lead to clear electoral consequences for either party.  Which is exactly why the Dems should feel more free in keeping a hard line to extract policy/judicial appointment concessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New polls have got O'Rourke gaining on Cruz again. At this point I doubt this will be the year Texas turns blue, but I'm certain now it will over the next few cycles. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Mr. O'Rourke on a national ticket before too long.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they necessarily have to pass a budget? A long term shutdown could help Republicans if it comes on the heels of losing the House. Trump's best hopes in 2020 are going to rely on him arguing that Democrats can't govern because it's unlikely he'll get any more legislative achievement during the next few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

A long term shutdown could help Republicans if it comes on the heels of losing the House.

Well, that's a political calculation that none of us has any idea about right now.  There's never really been a "long term" shutdown in the modern era (wouldn't know about pre-FDR).  Pretty sure the longest were the 1995-96 shutdowns which lasted 27 days, and the 2013 shutdown which lasted 17 days.  Who knows what would happen is one were to go substantially longer?  My point is depending on the conditions, it may be worth it to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yes, it fundamentally does put the filibuster back on the table because the GOP can't revert to reconciliation to pass a budget.  That's very basic logic.

How do you figure? The budget rules, by rule, are not vetoable and cannot be filibustered. The GOP can't rely on a slim majority alone to win in the House and Senate - but that doesn't change the Senate math at all, and by rule it can't change without enacting a new law. That's the CBA guarantee right now; if you want to change that, you need to change the law. 

How the GOP losing control of the House means that they now need a 60 person vote in the Senate really escapes me. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think what the recent shutdowns have shown is shutdowns don't lead to clear electoral consequences for either party.  Which is exactly why the Dems should feel more free in keeping a hard line to extract policy/judicial appointment concessions.

Except...if that's the case, the GOP knows it as well, so why would the GOP budge? Basically the GOP gets nothing from passing a budget in this scenario; they have a government shutdown that they can correctly blame on Democrats, they can continue doing executive orders and appointing justices without being blocked at all, and the military still gets paid. What leverage do the Democrats have in this scenario? Getting people hosed at the DMV and medicare hurts Democrats, not Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

Two random, and somewhat divergent, thoughts on if the Dems take the House and the GOP takes the Senate that I don't think have been mentioned.

This effectively eliminates reconciliation as a legislative tool for the GOP (i.e. the bare majority in the Dem House will not pass the same bill as the bare majority in the GOP Senate).  Which in turn re-institutes the legislative filibuster in the Senate.  If the Dems were smart and played hardball (I know, big if), they could use this as leverage to demand McConnell return to some semblance of the blue slip norm on court appointments.  May take a government shutdown, but I think it's worth it.

Politically, there's pretty large silver linings for Trump if there's a Dem House and a GOP Senate.  He's had trouble getting much of anything through Congress outside of the tax bill with the majorities he had in his first two years; and the first two years are almost always the most productive legislatively, plus it's basically a certainty his majority in the House will dissipate.  At least with a Democratic House he can more credibly shift blame attribution to the Democrats, which may help him with Obama-Trump voters and districts.

Ok, if the House majority comes down to hundreds of votes (which would mean a single district), it's plausible.  I just don't imagine that to be very plausible - or at least a very small likelihood.

Yep, and this is where I think you're far too imaginative.

If the Democrats in the House are smart and unified (both far from sure bets) they could pass a whole bunch of legislation, and then blame the Senate and POTUS for killing off every bit of legislation that passes the House.

Obama-Trump voters should mostly approve of the legislation a Democratic House passes. So if the road block is the Senate and POTUS it'll be difficult to easily paint the Democrats as the problem. Especially since Trump wasn't exactly full of win when he had majorities in both chambers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How do you figure? The budget rules, by rule, are not vetoable and cannot be filibustered.

Ok, let's slow down and reiterate.  The budget rules can only not be filibustered under reconciliation (I don't know where you're getting anything is not vetoable).  The House Dems have no reason to use the reconciliation process.  Therefore, they would have to pass a budget with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  This is same the strategy the GOP used during the 2013 shutdown, btw, albeit yes it certainly failed.  Further, and much more important, the GOP cannot boot-strap more policy driven initiatives (e.g. health care or tax cuts) into the reconciliation process.  If you don't see how that makes the legislative filibuster a much bigger stick to yield, I can't make it more clear.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except...if that's the case, the GOP knows it as well, so why would the GOP budge? Basically the GOP gets nothing from passing a budget in this scenario; they have a government shutdown that they can correctly blame on Democrats, they can continue doing executive orders and appointing justices without being blocked at all, and the military still gets paid. What leverage do the Democrats have in this scenario? Getting people hosed at the DMV and medicare hurts Democrats, not Republicans. 

See my response to Ty.

I find it amusing that everybody here is always insisting the Dems need to play hardball.  But when I identify the institutional tools and processes that they actually could use to play hardball, it's "no that could hurt us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to emphasize is the very durable finding that presidents tend to issue considerably less EOs - or at least "significant" or "policy-oriented" EOs - under divided government.  My own research shows the president tends to delegate less policymaking authority through EOs to like-minded agencies under divided government.  Also, interestingly, I'm currently cleaning up some data that shows Congress tends to delegate - as operationally defined by what's called "appropriations discretion" - more to agencies under divided compared to unified government.  Interpret that however you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, let's slow down and reiterate.  The budget rules can only not be filibustered under reconciliation (I don't know where you're getting anything is not vetoable). 

From here.
 

Quote

 

In March, the budget committees consider the President's budget proposals in the light of the CBO budget report, and each committee submits a budget resolution to its house by April 1. The House and Senate each consider these budget resolutions, and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. A budget resolution is a kind of concurrent resolution; it is not a law, and therefore does not require the President's signature.


 

And here:

Quote

 

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Congress that allows expedited passage of certain budgetary legislation on spending, revenues, and the federal debt limit with a simple majority vote in both the House (218 votes) and Senate (51 votes). Senate rules prohibit filibustering and impose a 20-hour cap on the total time for debate, motions and amendments related to reconciliation bills. The procedure also exists in the House of Representatives, but the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendments, so reconciliation has had a less significant impact on that body.[1]

The process was created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and was first used in 1980. Reconciliation rules allow budget related adjustments, but larger policy changes that are extraneous to the budget are limited by the "Byrd Rule," an amendment named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd that was passed in 1990.[2][3]

 

 

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

The House Dems have no reason to use the reconciliation process.  Therefore, they would have to pass a budget with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. 

Incorrect; any budgetary item is filibuster proof per the CBA. Reconciliation can be used once per year to AMEND the existing budget, and thus falls under the budget rules - but that doesn't mean the budget rules don't apply to them. 

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is same the strategy the GOP used during the 2013 shutdown, btw, albeit yes it certainly failed. 

This is incorrect; the House voted on a majority+1 bill for funding which defunded certain things, and the senate voted on something else. Neither bill would be considered by the other group, so nothing passed. Filibustering had nothing to do with it.

Now, where this gets confusing (about the veto) is that you can mix budget and nonbudget things (which is what House Republicans thought about doing in 2013), and Obama threatened to veto those - but pure budget considerations don't require a POTUS signature. In the end, the budget shutdown was largely resolved by having a 'clean' (IE, no law changes) budget passed, which again - didn't require a filibuster-proof majority (though ironically it got one anyway). 

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Further, and much more important, the GOP cannot boot-strap more policy driven initiatives (e.g. health care or tax cuts) into the reconciliation process.  If you don't see how that makes the legislative filibuster a much bigger stick to yield, I can't make it more clear.

Yes, that's absolutely true - but again, that has nothing to do with the House, and it doesn't require the Senate to do anything. Basically, I assume anything that would pass in the House if it's Dem-controlled would never pass in the Senate, reconciliation or no, because Trump would stop it. The bigger stick here is that the Democrats can entirely control what does and doesn't pass, period. Without the House Republicans have nothing, and it doesn't matter about the filibuster at all. The only way it actually does matter, amusingly enough, is that if the Democrats want to pass something chances are good they'll need a LOT of Senate Republicans on board. 

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

See my response to Ty.

I find it amusing that everybody here is always insisting the Dems need to play hardball.  But when I identify the institutional tools and processes that they actually could use to play hardball, it's "no that could hurt us."

I think it's perfectly fine to play hardball; I still don't see what the Dems get out of shutting the government down. Mostly, it's an asymmetrical warfare issue. The Republicans are fine with shutting down the government. Hell, that's basically their platform. They're the ones running on the government they can drown in a bathtub. Trump has threatened to do it as well. Dems are the ones running on government as a solution and them being able to govern. Shutdowns hurt them due to that.

And really, the bigger problem is that there's just not that much that having the House lets you do, hardball-wise. It basically lets you shutdown the government and veto any new legislation. But it doesn't stop judicial assignment, it doesn't stop executive orders, it doesn't stop appointments, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DMC said:

The other thing to emphasize is the very durable finding that presidents tend to issue considerably less EOs - or at least "significant" or "policy-oriented" EOs - under divided government.  My own research shows the president tends to delegate less policymaking authority through EOs to like-minded agencies under divided government.  Also, interestingly, I'm currently cleaning up some data that shows Congress tends to delegate - as operationally defined by what's called "appropriations discretion" - more to agencies under divided compared to unified government.  Interpret that however you will.

Probably irrelevant, given that the use of EOs skyrocketed only recently anyway. You could say the same thing about judicial appointments, but it would hardly be relevant to today's environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Incorrect; any budgetary item is filibuster proof per the CBA. Reconciliation can be used once per year to AMEND the existing budget, and thus falls under the budget rules - but that doesn't mean the budget rules don't apply to them. 

No, you're misunderstanding the process.  From you're first link - i.e. "A budget resolution is a kind of concurrent resolution; it is not a law, and therefore does not require the President's signature."  Yes, that's true, and the important point is a budget resolution is not lawSee here:

Quote

2. A budget resolution doesn’t actually do anything; it’s really just a promise Congress makes to itself to do the things assumed in the budget. The tax cuts, spending increases or decreases and Obamacare repeal all will require separate legislation to be enacted…and that’s highly, extremely and overwhelming unlikely.

3. Unlike a budget resolution, which can’t be vetoed by the president or filibustered in the Senate, all of the legislation needed to implement the policies assumed in a budget resolution can be vetoed and filibustered. That means that the simple majority needed to adopt a budget resolution in no way means that the votes will exist either to stop the debate in the Senate or override the president on any budget resolution policies.

And here:

Quote

The CBA mandates a baroque budget-producing process that the legislature must complete in a little over 70 weekdaysand which can easily be tripped up. And the budget resolution can be adopted by a simple majority of both chambers, but appropriations acts, as budget guru Stan Collender points out, need 60 or more votes in the Senate and a presidential signature. This difference encourages politicized budget resolutions that only occasionally get enacted into actual taxing and spending policies.

The notion budget bills not using reconciliation can't be filibustered is ludicrous if you look over the history of budget bills.

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Now, where this gets confusing (about the veto) is that you can mix budget and nonbudget things (which is what House Republicans thought about doing in 2013), and Obama threatened to veto those - but pure budget considerations don't require a POTUS signature.

Yes, they do require POTUS' signature to be enacted law.  I still don't know where you're getting this from.  I suspect you're still conflating budget resolutions (which are fundamentally different than appropriations CRs, if that's what's confusing you) with actual legislation.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, that's absolutely true - but again, that has nothing to do with the House, and it doesn't require the Senate to do anything.

Oye..Yes, it has everything to do with the House.  If the House was controlled by the GOP they could use reconciliation to pass another major measure by bootstrapping it into a reconciliation bill.

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And really, the bigger problem is that there's just not that much that having the House lets you do, hardball-wise. It basically lets you shutdown the government and veto any new legislation. But it doesn't stop judicial assignment, it doesn't stop executive orders, it doesn't stop appointments, etc. 

The point is the former gives you leverage to extract concessions from the latter.  You're asymmetrical warfare point may be right broadly, but the again that depends on conditions - including Trump's approval.  You're acting like it's a given a prolonged shutdown would hurt Dems, and there's absolutely no way for anyone to know that right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably irrelevant, given that the use of EOs skyrocketed only recently anyway.

No they didn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most legislation was gridlocked / stopped increasingly from 1850 on, until by the time of Buchanan, anything that wasn't in favor of the slaveocracy was dead.  And, in fact, leading up to the 1860 potus elections, Buchanan and the southerners managed to siphon as much of federal assets away from Washington to the South that when Lincoln took office there was nothing left in the treasury; armaments had been taken down South; the navy had been sent for no plausible reason to -- Peru? Bolivia? -- anyway, a whole continent away, so right there blockading southern ports for secession was much more difficult to do.

BUT -- in the meantime, no congressional action on government land transfers to poor farmers looking for land (nevermind, of course, that these public government lands had been stolen in the first place from the Native Americans, and that southern slave power expected all this land to belong to their own ever increasing ownership of land for more slave territories); no public education or public works of any kind, etc. etc. etc.  These are the same ilks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mormont said:

It's already been pointed out that he was asked the exact same question during the election, he had no reason to tell them anything else then either (as I believe you may have said at the time), and yet he equivocated. So here, you're just going to have to accept you're wrong, I'm afraid. 

Equivocation is one of the most basic tools of even halfway decent politicians; it changed nothing then and it would change nothing this year either. It is not worth worrying about.

18 hours ago, mormont said:

Numerous other things Trump supporters are enthusiastic about are also flagrantly un-American. They get around this by redefining in their own minds what's 'American' and what is not, and by justifying bad things for the 'greater good'.

Not like this. There are many things which certain Americans regard as un-American and others do not, but one branch of government (especially the executive) seizing power is one of the few things that'll get 90%+ agreement on.

18 hours ago, mormont said:

It really is not. Democrats accept that Trump won. They have opposed his policies and criticised him, they have even pointed out that he lost the popular vote (which is true), but they have accepted that he won. The idea that any foul play by the right can be excused as 'politics as usual' and utterly unremarkable is one of your go-to lines, and it's rubbish. 

They accept that he won, but with a caveat and only after trying everything they could think of to de-legitimize him and failing. Examples of the latter include:

1) Massive protests with no specific causes or demands following the election.

2) Dozens of respectable and hundreds of lousy articles detailing the vices of the Electoral College and crowing on the (utterly irrelevant) fact that Clinton won the popular vote.

3) The recount campaign in the Midwest.

4) After all else failed, the faithless elector ploy which, hilariously, resulted in more electors abandoning Clinton than abandoned Trump.

The caveat is, of course, the (absurd) idea that Russia played a significant role in Trump's victory -- an idea which has been inflated beyond all reasonable expectations. Mind you, I think that this is good strategy on part of the Democrats, but to do all of these things and then argue that de-legitimizing the victories of your opponent is not politics as usual is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×