US Politics: In Through the Out Door

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So let's talk about Bob Menendez. Schumer's Senate Majority PAC spent about $6 million in the last few weeks in his race, which he ended up winning comfortably by about 10%.

Would that money have been better spent to shore up more support for Sinema on AZ, or to try to persuade some tens of thousands of voters in Florida for Nelson? McCaskill, Heitkamp and Donnelly were all pretty much lost causes, but a flip in AZ and a hold in FL turns a 54-46 nightmare into a much more manageable 52-48 deficit (I'm assuming Tester holds on to win as he has just pulled ahead in the vote count).

I suppose it's probable that's true, but the problem with any such analysis is that it is subject to hindsight bias, the common human tendency to think that outcomes which have already occurred were more predictable than they really were. It's great to analyze this if you are using it to modify your future behavior, but perhaps we should be wary about placing "blame" after the fact. It's certainly only after the fact that Donnelly looks like a "lost cause". for instance. I don't remember anyone saying that a few days ago.

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The Republicans have a record on the economy that's easily summed up as lower taxes, deregulation, less government. Everyone knows that. What's the Democrats' economic message? I honestly don't have a clue. And that leaves the door wide open for Republicans to paint the Dems however they will here.

That's what they sell, but is FAR FAR FAR away from what they actually do.  They grow the government faster, spend more, and create huge deficits; which is exactly what this administration and republicans in congress have done for 2 years.

You're also kidding yourself if you think these tariffs aren't going to start hitting hard within the next year.  Prices on all goods are going to go up, farming sales are going to continue to plummet, and our growth is going to stagnate.  Couple that with a few major 'corrections' of the market, the inevitable popping of the current housing bubble, and no money because you had to give rich people tax breaks; and I don't think selling that democrats have ALWAYS been better with the economy is going to be hard.

[aceluby]

15 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

You're probably right, but think that might be a mistake. This is leader is not up to the task ahead of her. Talking about bipartisanship, how she worked with Bush so she can work with Trump. Just... wow. 

She's the fucking worst.  We need a leader willing to go to war, not some passive old lady.

[Bonnot OG]

Let's talk about how bad losing more seats in the Senate was. It looks like the Senate will remain Republican until at least 2023. They will probably get a shot at putting ANOTHER conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Ginsburg and Breyer could’ve retired in 2013 / 2014 and had left of conservative replacements, both declined, both probably fucked this country.

Also, yea, Pelosi is a fucking scumbag. Welcome aboard that train. 

Oh, and fuck Tom Perez and Schumer too.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Wednesday morning quarterback hot take time: Mittens R’Money will actually be a useful conservative in the Senate. He’s far more decent that most Republicans, and he has zero fears of being primaried.

 

 

Also, assuming NPR is correct, 13 of the 21 Obama-Trump congressional districts swung back to Democrats. That’s a solid sign, and more may do so.

[Lollygag]

Just now, aceluby said:

That's what they sell, but is FAR FAR FAR away from what they actually do.  They grow the government faster, spend more, and create huge deficits; which is exactly what this administration and republicans in congress have done for 2 years.

You're also kidding yourself if you think these tariffs aren't going to start hitting hard within the next year.  Prices on all goods are going to go up, farming sales are going to continue to plummet, and our growth is going to stagnate.  Couple that with a few major 'corrections' of the market, the inevitable popping of the current housing bubble, and no money because you had to give rich people tax breaks; and I don't think selling that democrats have ALWAYS been better with the economy is going to be hard.

Oh yeah, I know. But a lot of voters will go with any message over no message plus the Dems have a reputation problem with the economy. This is an opportunity. A lot of fiscal conservatives are seething over this, a lot of Trump voters, too, but the Dems aren't offering anything better so they stay put.

If there's no economic message from the Dems, then the only hope is that Trump's decisions tank and hope that he can't spin them enough. But it's a bad idea strategically to rely on this happening right on time and just the way one would hope in two years. And it doesn't address the long term problems that Dems have here. I get a Trumpbot governor and executive branch for 4 years because the Dems didn't bother with an economic message so the Republicans made one up for them. It wasn't nice and it worked great.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

A couple reasons. 

One is that basically none of the "We LOVE THIS PERSON" races won. Democrats want a person to rally around and love - and Gillum, Abrams, O'Rourke all lost, and not only lost but lost despite poll numbers looking good (at least in FL and GA). That hurts. 

Another is that the Senate was a big loss. To put this in context, it hasn't happened in this century that a single Dem incumbent senator was flipped in an offyear; this year, at least three and potentially 5 were flipped. That's huge. Not only that, but this result - either a 54 or 55 majority - means that the Dems are unlikely to retake the senate for a while, and that means no check on the judicial destruction for likely 4 years or more.

First, I think those hurt if you’re looking at this emotionally, but not as much if you’re rationally. Abrams best hope was to make it to a runoff, and that could still happen in theory, but she was never going to win outright. Beto wasn’t going to win. His mission should have been helping down ballot candidates, which he did. Gillum is the only one that hurts, but I was skeptical of the polling data to begin with.

Second, I expected Republicans to make gains last night. It’s true that it makes it harder to retake the Senate in 2020, but that would have been a tall order anyways. The 2020 map requires Trump to collapse to make significant gains anyways. There are two or three states that can be reasonably won, but the request require outside factors we cannot predict yet. So even if  last night went as I expected, which was Republicans +2, it would have been difficult.

Overall, last night was huge, especially when you consider that was looking bad for the House early on. We have a chamber, and thus we have investigations with teeth.

[lokisnow]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm not watching it, but I legit wonder if she has the votes to become Speaker.

If Democrats win all the races they currently lead in, and there's enough outstanding votes in a couple of the California districts they still trail in (entirely possible), Democrats will end up with around 231 seats (NYT currently estimates 229). It takes an absolute majority of the House to become speaker, and certainly no Republican will vote for her. I'm nearly positive that there's more than 14 Democrats in the House who pledged not to vote for Pelosi. There's no obvious alternative though, and I suspect Democrats will want to organize the House quickly after Jan. 3 so they can start oversight functions, and not get caught up in a protracted leadership battle.

Adam Schiff for speaker please!

[IheartIheartTesla]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wednesday morning quarterback hot take time: Mittens R’Money will actually be a useful conservative in the Senate. He’s far more decent that most Republicans, and he has zero fears of being primaried.

Well, hopefully he wont vote to gut his signature achievement, Obamacare (aka Romneycare 2.0)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

RBG has a proactive, thorough and systematic program of exercise and diet she has pursued for years to keep herself in good health, you should actually worry about Breyer. 

men die earlier, from more diseases, suffer more age related cognitive declines and old men do less exercise and diet to conserve their health. rBG takes her age seriously, Breyer it seems, does not.

so don’t go fretting about her, Breyer is the real ticking time bomb.

Also, Thomas is probably retiring in June given the spectacular republican senate results.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, however RBG just has that frail appaerance. And she is already 85 I think. Eventhough, women get older on average, 85 is still an age at which certain concerns about heir health are not totally misplaced.

Possibly. But I think/hope his ego will get the better of Thomas, so he sticks around for the next Democrat president - and a friendly reaper (I know, I shouldn't say, that).

 

[JGP]

Sessions resigned. Here we go! 

 

ETA: Whitaker now acting AG, has been critical of the Mueller investigation, now overseer of it. Bloodsport

[Morpheus]

Time for Chuck and Nancy to grow spines.

[Maithanet]

Well that leaves plenty of time to prepare for the Sessions vs Jones Senate race. 

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Time for Chuck and Nancy to grow spines.

I don't even know this means. 

[Fragile Bird]

How long before Mueller is fired?

Oh, wait, Rosenstein first, right?

[Mexal]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

How long before Mueller is fired?

Oh, wait, Rosenberg first, right?

Soon.

 

[Bonnot OG]

Oh, well this got interesting. Sessions just stepped down.

[Kalbear]

Since it's not too early, EVER - what do you have in 2020?

Based on the results last night, I think we can assume that Florida and Ohio are both going to go for Trump outside of economic collapse. (I think we can likely agree that if the economy fails, Trump is almost certainly toast). Which basically gives us the same map as we had in 2016 - meaning that Trump needs Penn, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

I think Penn is probably going to go Dem in 2020, especially given the results from last night. I think Michigan might as well. Wisconsin though? Honestly the weirdest thing in the world is that the new NAFTA negotiation might make or break that.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

How long before Mueller is fired?

Oh, wait, Rosenstein first, right?

Why, when Trump can keep him in place and embarrass him further? He doesn't need to fire him now. After all, Rosenstein's no longer the boss, re: special counsel. 

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh, well this got interesting. Sessions just stepped down.

Fired.