US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[Zorral]

But more the point, that climate catastrophes and the multiple wars expenses are going to drive this economy that people seem to believe is booming, back down into the toilet.  How much more can a multiple trillion dollar deficit federal budget absorb even in the short-term?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

But more the point, that climate catastrophes and the multiple wars expenses are going to drive this economy that people seem to believe is booming, back down into the toilet.  How much more can a multiple trillion dollar deficit federal budget absorb even in the short-term?

A lot? The calculus is really simple: how much debt the US can have is ultimately based on how much debt other countries are willing to buy. And so far, that number appears to not have any specific limit. It makes the US significantly less nimble and able to respond to economic challenges, and that's bad - but there isn't any specific state when the US simply cannot do things.

[Martell Spy]

54 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The Republican Party

When all else fails, it will just make shit up.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/12/18088990/john-mccain-republicans-house-midterms-health-care

 

 

 

Yeah, the person responsible for the Republican party losing this election is mainly Paul Ryan, and perhaps Graham or any other nitwit that wrote an Obamacare repeal bill. This was made pretty clear as healthcare was the House Democrats main message during this election. 

And the whole "Republicans actually won this election" argument is looking weaker all the time as the House Democrat gains increase and the Republicans Senate gains decrease. No, Paul Ryan was given control of all healthcare policy, and created the shittiest bill in many decades. The Republicans and Trump then put their full weight behind trying to get this foisted on the American people, and incompetently failed to do so. Then, they tried to lie about what they had done, but no one believed them and they lost the election.

And not even their gerrymandering bullshit could save them.

[Martell Spy]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

AP is saying that Sinema has been declared the winner for the Arizona Senate seat.  Huge.  

Wait, I thought the Republicans won this election?

[Maithanet]

Yeah, so the final tally is looking very likely to be D+38 seats in the House, R+2 seats in the Senate, D+7 governorships.  Losing two senate seats stings, but that's a great cycle.  Sure, Democrats (myself included) had definitely hoped for more, and would undoubtedly be willing to trade a few of those House seats for a few more marquee wins, particularly FL Senate and FL gov.  But Republicans did not fight Democrats to a draw.  They lost.  They lost a lot of power. 

The difference between a 53 and 51 seat majority in the Senate barely matters anyway with the Democrats controlling the House.  It's really only a problem when the Dems try again to take the Senate in 2020.  And that's going to be largely dependent on Trump's popularity and the coattails of whoever is running against him.  If the Democrats can win the WH in 2020 (huge IF I know), then they'll need to pick up 3 Senate seats to take the chamber.  That's tough, but far from impossible, with opportunities in CO, ME, NC, AZ, IA, MT, GA, TX and AK.  Sure, in a presidential year all those will be tough, but getting a net +3 is definitely still possible. 

[The Anti-Targ]

19 minutes ago, Triskele said:

AP is saying that Sinema has been declared the winner for the Arizona Senate seat.  Huge.  

Is that a reversal on a recount, or just a final count?

I'm wondering what's the historical record with recounts overturning election night results? It seems a lot of people put a lot of hope into recounts, but it seems more often than not recounts confirm the election night winner. Even excluding shadey decisions like Florida 2000.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is that a reversal on a recount, or just a final count?

I'm wondering what's the historical record with recounts overturning election night results? It seems a lot of people put a lot of hope into recounts, but it seems more often than not recounts confirm the election night winner. Even excluding shadey decisions like Florida 2000.

It's just the initial count, Arizona counts super slow.  Even now they're only at like 90% of the vote counted, but most of the remaining votes are in the two big population centers of Phoenix and Tuscon, which Sinema has been winning.  Given that she's up ~40k, AP decided that there really wasn't a scenario where McSally closes that gap with the votes that are left. 

And yes, you are right that recounts almost never overturn the result, unless it was within 100 votes or less.  538 had an article about it. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah, so the final tally is looking very likely to be D+38 seats in the House, R+2 seats in the Senate, D+7 governorships.  Losing two senate seats stings, but that's a great cycle.  Sure, Democrats (myself included) had definitely hoped for more, and would undoubtedly be willing to trade a few of those House seats for a few more marquee wins, particularly FL Senate and FL gov.  But Republicans did not fight Democrats to a draw.  They lost.  They lost a lot of power. 

The difference between a 53 and 51 seat majority in the Senate barely matters anyway with the Democrats controlling the House.  It's really only a problem when the Dems try again to take the Senate in 2020.  And that's going to be largely dependent on Trump's popularity and the coattails of whoever is running against him.  If the Democrats can win the WH in 2020 (huge IF I know), then they'll need to pick up 3 Senate seats to take the chamber.  That's tough, but far from impossible, with opportunities in CO, ME, NC, AZ, IA, MT, GA, TX and AK.  Sure, in a presidential year all those will be tough, but getting a net +3 is definitely still possible. 

Really, the difference between R+2 and R+4 is absurdly huge in 2020. Assume dems take Maine from Collins and lose Alabama, we're at 3 to flip. CO almost certainly will, leaving NC, AZ, AK and IA as the next toughest. I can easily see getting two of those. But definitely not 4. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Really, the difference between R+2 and R+4 is absurdly huge in 2020. Assume dems take Maine from Collins and lose Alabama, we're at 3 to flip. CO almost certainly will, leaving NC, AZ, AK and IA as the next toughest. I can easily see getting two of those. But definitely not 4. 

It is a big difference, no question.  But if it does end up being 53-47, Democrats taking the Senate in 2020 is more realistic than Democrats taking the Senate in 2018 was a week ago.  The Senate map is inherently bad for Democrats, and will be for the indefinite future.  We already knew that and 2018 didn't change it either way.

[The Anti-Targ]

Is it a coincidence that every congressional district that borders Mexico bar 1 is held by the Democrats, and the one Republican district, in Texas, was a very narrow win (0.5% / 1140ish votes) for the Republicans? And the only border district to flip was a pretty decent win for the Democrats in AZ. Seems like the districts that should be most worried about caravans of dirty South Americans crossing in droves are actually not all that worried.

[lokisnow]

Let’s talk about framing:  how R+2 (potentially R+4) is painted as a dem loss, there were 33 seats up in 2018, plus two specials, so 35. Republicans have won 10 and are favored in two undecideds, democrats won 23 and were competitive in another half dozen. So democrats won 65% of the seats, that is equivalent to winning 282 seats in the house.

I’d frame that as a wave. Relative to the 2006 wave miraculously sustained in 2012 that got us  so many incumbents, winning 65% of senate seats is pretty damn good, just not quite as big a wave. 

But, If they’d won all of those other six seats (ND, MO, IN, OH, TX, TN, that’s 83% of seats, add in FL and MS special and it’s 31 out of 35 seats democrats fought for and were close on. Remarkable night, when you think about it, that democrats only had four senate seats they punted on, considering democrats usual punt-on-first-down philosophy it’s actually a massive improvement in tactics and strategy, even if we didn’t get a shutout.

 

by adopting the media framing of a loss we are losing sight of the fact that the win in the senate was stronger than the win in the house.

its a wave y’ll. And if it had been a tsunami ( if Kavanaugh and the caravan never happened) it could have easily been democrats winning 30 out 35 seats! (But probably still about the same in the house because of gerrymandering)

 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Let’s talk about framing:  how R+2 (potentially R+4) is painted as a dem loss

I agree with most of what you said here, but what do you mean by R+4?  At this moment, there are two undecided races, and that will determine whether it is R+0 (a 51-49 Republican majority) or R+2, if Republicans win the Florida and Mississippi seats, which they are very likely to win.  R+4 was the nightmare scenario we had on election night because Sinema and Tester were both down as of 9am Wednesday morning.  But that scenario is no longer even worth considering - those races have been called. 

[lokisnow]

Looking at 2020, the 2018 investments in Tennessee, Arizona, Kansas, Georgia, and Texas could pay stronger dividends in the next cycle. Democrats have also poured a ton into North Carolina in the last three presidential cycles and if we can draft a politician that doesn’t cheat on his cancer suffering wife, it should be a top target. Colorado and Iowa also always get a lot of resources. Maine is a top target but democrats are so happy to vote split ticket in important races that Collins is probably safe. 

We played it close in Montana and North Dakota, play that game again, may not pay off with wins but its important democrats compete in at least 85% of the races. So that means we need a similar to 2018 great candidate recruitment cycle in all of the states people are mentally writing off, it’s very doable and republicans will be really stressed if they have 31 competitive senate races Two cycles in a row.

[lokisnow]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree with most of what you said here, but what do you mean by R+4?  At this moment, there are two undecided races, and that will determine whether it is R+0 (a 51-49 Republican majority) or R+2, if Republicans win the Florida and Mississippi seats, which they are very likely to win.  R+4 was the nightmare scenario we had on election night because Sinema and Tester were both down as of 9am Wednesday morning.  But that scenario is no longer even worth considering - those races have been called. 

My bad I was thinking it was already R+2 but had forgotten revisions changed that even though the media didn’t change their maps!

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

My bad I was thinking it was already R+2 but had forgotten revisions changed that even though the media didn’t change their maps!

R+2 is the most likely outcome at this point. It could in theory be R+1. Even seems to be impossible, unless Mississippi is incredibly weird. 

I was saying R+4 because that was what we were saying Tuesday, and what it looked like then. R+4 is basically impossible to beat in 2020. 53 seats by comparison is much more obtainable to overcome, though realistically you'd need to take 4 seats more.

[lokisnow]

Miami herald has an in depth article on the voting by email scandal in bay county FL. The guy who allowed insinuated he knows of otheR counties doing the same and that he informed the fl state dept about his intentions.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article221536055.html

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, Week said:

[again -- implied in the latter bolded statement]

 Yeah, ok. You contradicted yourself a number of times here in the bolded text. 

Now -- let's look ahead!!

https://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-didnt-mean-to-tell-the-truth-1830344771

/Bern gonna bern. 

I'm not sure how I contradicted myself. I initial post is a reference to Jeb being forced and allowing Trump to gain prominence. The Republicans continually forced someone else than Trump every time their newest endorsed candidate lost. This is a very different situation than Clinton, though I can see why I confused you. Clinton was the wrong candidate at the wrong time due to Trump. I don't know how she would have fared against someone like Romney. 

Ease up. Democrats hating each other doesn't help anything. And just like I do every time, no matter who gets the Dem nomination, I will vote for them in Nov. 2020. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, it wasn’t rigged. Parties often have a preferred candidate and they do things to help them, but saying it was rigged implies that it was fixed. That was simply not the case.  

That's rigging the system for your candidate. I feel like a number of Dems like to participate in thought experiments about "what it really means to rig something." Elizabeth Warren believes the process was rigged. Donna Brazile, who, again, fed Hillary questions, says it was rigged. And whatever Brazile's role in that, she claims it was Hillary's team who rigged the process, not the party--that Hillary had insiders working for her and rigging the outcome. Democrats are trying to move away from the view that the people don't get a say in the nominees. Debbie W.S. allowed Hillary to hire people into the DNC as a favor for Hillary paying down the DNC's debt. If you don't believe Brazile's honest, I totally get it, but she was the head of DNC. She probably has some knowledge on this. 

When parties have preferred candidates, and it becomes obvious, people get upset. You leave room for populists like Bernie. Or worse, pseudo-populists like Trump. I'm not interested in going through this again, but I struggle to see how people ignore evidence. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), an influential House Democrat, pleaded Monday with colleagues and incoming House freshmen to reject the efforts of a "small group" of Democrats he said is "trying to generate opposition" to Nancy Pelosi's bid for the speakership.

"For two years, they asserted that with Nancy Pelosi as our leader, Democrats could never win back the House. They claimed that these relentless Republican attacks made Leader Pelosi appear too divisive, and they argued that she should step aside for the good of the party," Cummings wrote in a "Dear Colleague" letter to the incoming class of Democrats. "But then last Tuesday happened. And the American people obliterated the theory that Nancy Pelosi could not lead House Democrats to victory."

 

 

Well, the man makes a good point. And the whole 'Republicans are using Pelosi as a bogeyman" argument really makes little sense in the wake of this election. If that is the Republican strategy, then the R strategy is shit.

[lokisnow]

As of last night, Incumbent republican Dante Acosta’s lead has shrunk to 213 votes over christy Smith for ca state assembly district 38. This one is coming down incredibly close!