US Politics: Paradise Lost

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

My hypothesis is that the big bugbear was a combination of Obama demonification and people hating Pelosi because of her part in the ACA. Well, one is gone, and the other is far less effective of a scare tactic to the point where Democrats ran on protecting the ACA and ran on the Republican record of healthcare votes - and did pretty well.

That's an incredibly convenient and untestable hypothesis.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

! WHY DID I NOT BRING GERRYMANDERING UP IN THE BAKKER OR THE NFL THREADS

. 

Was just about to ask why you haven't criticized the redistricting of Carythusal during the Unification Wars since the end of TUC.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Well, you were in what I was responding to and said it still didn't matter:

So, I don't care to respond now that the goalposts have been changed.

Got drunker earlier than usual tonight, huh? 

Me saying asshole House members becoming asshole senate members does not in any way imply that therefore, the House is Very Important or Powerful. Any more than saying that the DC court circuit is more important than the SCOTUS because a lot of SCOTUS came from the DC Court. How does that make any sense to you?

Just now, DMC said:

You've been talking about the Senate since November 6.

I've been talking about the Good Place since November 6th. I literally was talking about Saudi defense contracts before this, and this whole thing spun out about me talking about Pelosi - who as far as I know is not part of the Senate.

Just now, DMC said:

Her constituents reelected her.  I'm not going to argue with them.

They're Floridians, and therefore almost certainly wrong in a lot of ways.

 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's an incredibly convenient and untestable hypothesis.

Cool! Got any testable ones that prove your point? Because I suspect you don't, because the notion that a House speaker being a major reason why people vote the way they do is either very difficult to prove one way or another or has a lot of counter evidence. For example, the #1 issue people said mattered to them in this voting cycle was healthcare; #2 was immigration. #3 was judicial nominations. Which of those is associated with Pelosi? And which of those did Democrats run on? 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Was just about to ask why you haven't criticized the redistricting of Carythusal during the Unification Wars since the end of TUC.

THE MANDATE HAS GONE TO HELL SINCE KELLHUS ALLOWED WOMEN TO VOTE

[Fragile Bird]

I stopped trying to say Trump once again surprised me some months ago, but here we go again. Tweeting Shitt instead of Shiff has got to be some bizarro new low.

[DMC]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Me saying asshole House members becoming asshole senate members does not in any way imply that therefore, the House is Very Important or Powerful. Any more than saying that the DC court circuit is more important than the SCOTUS because a lot of SCOTUS came from the DC Court. How does that make any sense to you?

HAHA!  Are you seriously comparing the differences between the DC circuit and SCOTUS to the House and the Senate?  ..Right, I'm the one who's drunk.  If the politics and subsequent policy emanate from the House, that suggests the House is more influential on policy - wherein each chamber has an equal say in.  This is basic shit dude.  All that's left is for you to whine about the Senate's judicial confirmation power, which again, is the only difference.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Got any testable ones that prove your point?

Prove the point?  No.  Highly suggest the point?  Yep.  The GOP has spent an inordinate amount of money and ads highlighting Nancy Pelosi since she became speaker in 2007.  You can dismiss them as idiots for continuing to do that through SEVEN election cycles, but they're actually smarter than you on this.  So, yeah, that's my test, and please try and tell me it didn't pass.

[Ordos]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

McAdams (D) has regained the lead in the UT-4 count and it sounds like there aren't really any ballots left to count, so that would be pickup number 39 for House Democrats.

And the count in CA-21 keeps inching closer and closer, not unreasonable to think that'll be number 40.

 

Thanks for the information. The NY Times is slow to update their count and still have UT-4 with Mia Love in the lead.

As for CA-21, yeah it's weird that most of the media have called it for the Republican and it takes Wikipedia (for me anyway) to be reminded not to count it out yet.

There are still 2 uncalled races in New York and one in Georgia. Didn't see rural/suburban New York to be such a fierce battleground.

There will be a Senate runoff election in Mississippi next week. Not setting my hopes very high for that one, but I heard Drumpf will hold rallies there. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

HAHA!  Are you seriously comparing the differences between the DC circuit and SCOTUS to the House and the Senate?  ..Right, I'm the one who's drunk.  If the politics and subsequent policy emanate from the House, that suggests the House is more influential on policy - wherein each chamber has an equal say in.  This is basic shit dude.  All that's left is for you to whine about the Senate's judicial confirmation power, which again, is the only difference.

Prove the point?  No.  Highly suggest the point?  Yep.  The GOP has spent an inordinate amount of money and ads highlighting Nancy Pelosi since she became speaker in 2007.  You can dismiss them as idiots for continuing to do that through SEVEN election cycles, but they're actually smarter than you on this.  So, yeah, that's my test, and please try and tell me it didn't pass.

Do most GOP voters even know who Pelosi is?  Beyond 'congress lady?' 

Are they just pumping money there because they know that Joe the Plummer loves to hear 'congress lady bad'?  

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

HAHA!  Are you seriously comparing the differences between the DC circuit and SCOTUS to the House and the Senate?  ..Right, I'm the one who's drunk.  If the politics and subsequent policy emanate from the House, that suggests the House is more influential on policy - wherein each chamber has an equal say in.  This is basic shit dude.  All that's left is for you to whine about the Senate's judicial confirmation power, which again, is the only difference.

 

Yes, I'm making the comparison that you did. Because apparently if you're coming from the House and going to the Senate, that makes the House more important than the Senate. That's your logic, bruh. 

And the politics and policy, as I said, don't emanate from the House first. 

The Senate has control not only over judicial appointments - which are Kind Of A Big Deal - but all confirmation hearings on executive positions. Having the ability to confirm or deny SCOTUS alone makes them significantly more powerful than the House, but being able to rubber stamp idiots like DeVos and potentially Whitaker is also a big deal. What's the phrase - people are policy? 

 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Prove the point?  No.  Highly suggest the point?  Yep.  The GOP has spent an inordinate amount of money and ads highlighting Nancy Pelosi since she became speaker in 2007.  You can dismiss them as idiots for continuing to do that through SEVEN election cycles, but they're actually smarter than you on this.  So, yeah, that's my test, and please try and tell me it didn't pass.

So you're saying that in 6 elections (08,10,12,14,16,18), they spent a bunch of money demonizing Pelosi - and in two of the six got their asses entirely kicked. And therefore, it's a good strategy. And we'll just happily ignore that they lost seats in 16 as well, ignore the gerrymandering from 2012 on, ignore the ACA as the #2 issue on voters minds in 2010 (behind the shitty economy), and we'll just focus on the idea that because Republicans spent money on advertising it, it must be true. 

Like Clinton spent money on "Better Together". 

Gotcha. 

[Kalbear]

Or we could, ya know, use data.

Quote

A private poll commissioned by the Republican National Committee that Bloomberg obtained last weekunderscored the GOP’s problem. When the November election is framed by Trump and Pelosi, respondents preferred Pelosi-aligned candidates over Trump-aligned ones by 5 points, 50 percent to 45 percent, Bloomberg reported. Among independents, a crucial voting bloc for both parties, the minority leader was ahead by a 4-point margin.

Or this one, which had attack ads used against Mikie Sherill - didn't work out so well. 

Quote

 

Still, Democrats — and even some Republicans — question whether the familiar blueprint will backfire since it doesn’t account for 2018’s unique conditions or new motivations stirring women in a post-Brett Kavanaugh election.

“We’ve got 30,000 women running nationwide and they’re still running against Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton,” said Sue Dvorsky, former Iowa Democratic Party chairwoman. “Is that the best they’ve got?”

 

I mean, hell, the second person they used the most? Hillary Clinton. Everyone agrees she's unpopular too, but...so what? As a strategy with an incumbent POTUS we can say that it did not work. Could it work in the future? Sure, I suppose. So far, what appears to be the case is that Pelosi is not by herself enough to drag down Democrat results. 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Do most GOP voters even know who Pelosi is?  Beyond 'congress lady?' 

Based on her favorability ratings, a lot more voters have an opinion on her than almost any other politician.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, I'm making the comparison that you did.

How in gods name is that the same comparison?  Do I have to break out school house rock videos?  SCOTUS can overrule the DC Circuit whenever and however it wants.  The House and the Senate are coequal lawmaking branches.  The comparison is farcical, at best.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And the politics and policy, as I said, don't emanate from the House first.

Says you.  I have a link that says it does.  Please cite, as you love to say.

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but all confirmation hearings on executive positions.

Um, Trump isn't even allowing Whitaker a confirmation hearing - that's the entire point of his appointment - so I don't see how this is much of a different power.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Or we could, ya know, use data.

Um, yeah, that link says:

Quote

Before that, a CNN poll conducted Aug. 9-12 also found that only 34 percent of voters identified Pelosi as an issue that was very or extremely important to their vote. Twice as many, 68 percent, said the same of Trump. Pelosi ranked the lowest in importance among the 10 issues presented to voters in the survey. 

It's weird when a third of the electorate even knows who the House minority leader is.  The fact that many identified her as a very or important aspect of their vote is the problem in the first place.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Could it work in the future? Sure, I suppose. 

Ohkay then.  That's the point.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Based on her favorability ratings, a lot more voters have an opinion on her than almost any other politician.

And if she was running for POTUS that might matter.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

How in gods name is that the same comparison?  Do I have to break out school house rock videos?  SCOTUS can overrule the DC Circuit whenever and however it wants.  The House and the Senate are coequal lawmaking branches.  The comparison is farcical, at best. 

You're the one saying that the House is more important than the Senate because House members became more partisan Senate members. I didn't say that, you did. That has nothing to do with coequal lawmaking branches.

My position, which you took umbrage with, was that the House is not as powerful as either the Senate or the Judiciary. You disagreed, and your argument was because house members became senate members, the House was as powerful. I still don't get that, and to me it IS as ludicrous as saying that the DC court is as powerful as the SCOTUS. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Says you.  I have a link that says it does.  Please cite, as you love to say.

 

Your link certainly didn't say that.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Um, Trump isn't even allowing Whitaker a confirmation hearing - that's the entire point of his appointment - so I don't see how this is much of a different power. 

Depends on if he makes Whitaker actual AG, which had been rumored. But okay, let's ignore that for a second. We've also got Ben Carson, Zinke, Ross, Mnuchin, Perry...it's kind of a big deal. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Um, yeah, that link says:

It's weird when a third of the electorate even knows who the House minority leader is.  The fact that many identified her as a very or important aspect of their vote is the problem in the first place.

I agree that she's got name recognition. I don't know that getting rid of her for someone else - and someone else less effective than her (which is almost certainly going to be the case given that she has been described as the most effective House speaker in 75 years) is going to make it better.  Also note that Pelosi was not just 10th - she was the lowest selection of the options available. Which doesn't mean she's 10th most important; it means she was the last option picked of the 10 options given. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Ohkay then.  That's the point.

Now, here's the real rub. Let's say that Pelosi isn't speaker. Do you think the attack ads change? Do they bother changing them? Again, their attack ads reference Clinton - someone who isn't in any actual public office and is not particularly heavily campaigning or going out there and rallying (unlike, say, Obama). As long as Pelosi is alive - and probably for a while after - they'll continue to beat that drum. 

Clinton losing didn't solve that issue. Pelosi not being speaker won't either. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if she was running for POTUS that might matter.

Her name ID and upside down favorability do matter.  Anyone that says differently is either negligent or playing for the other side.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You disagreed, and your argument was because house members became senate members, the House was as powerful. I still don't get that

Perhaps you should actually read the article then.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Your link certainly didn't say that.

Yes it did.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree that she's got name recognition. I don't know that getting rid of her for someone else - and someone else less effective than her

Heh, neither do I.  I don't think there's anybody that could do a better job than Pelosi, which is why as I've said repeatedly, I'm fine with her staying.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do you think the attack ads change? Do they bother changing them?

It will take longer to demonize a new target.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Her name ID and upside down favorability do matter.  Anyone that says differently is either negligent or playing for the other side. 

Do they matter more than her success? Do they matter more than her fundraising? 

Do they help or hurt more when the primary mover of the Dems new success is suburban, educated, older women?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you should actually read the article then.

I did. Perhaps you should indicate how it says that because House members became senate members it means the House is as powerful and as important as the Senate. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yes it did.

Nuh uh

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It will take longer to demonize a new target.

Why would they bother? Again, they're running attack ads against Clinton. They're going to do that for the next 8-10 years regardless. Anyone who becomes speaker will be stated to be 'the next Pelosi' or 'Pelosi's secret puppet'. Or they won't even bother changing it, and will just say 'this person is in league with Pelosi' even if she isn't speaker. 

Actual truth doesn't matter in these ads any more, if it ever did. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do they matter more than her success? Do they matter more than her fundraising? 

Do they help or hurt more when the primary mover of the Dems new success is suburban, educated, older women?

These questions all have to evaluate how much Pelosi is responsible for any of that.  That's not something anyone can say with any authority, so yeah, if you pine of Nancy, godspeed.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Perhaps you should indicate how it says that because House members became senate members it means the House is as powerful and as important as the Senate. 

Perhaps you should read the abstract and make the obvious deduction.  But no, you won't.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nuh uh

Uh huh!

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, they're running attack ads against Clinton.

Again, they're running attack ads against Pelosi - at equal and often greater measure.

Anyway, my main problem about this, to reiterate, is we got 3 octogenarians come 2020 running the House - and they would be in the same spots  for 14 years at that point.  That's fucking pathetic to me, no matter how much you justify it.

[Kalbear]

The other thing I don't get about that article is that it fails a very basic test: the polarization and rancid behavior of the Senate is essentially boiled down to Mitch McConnell's leadership. And...he never was in the House. Not once. He's been leader of the Senate Republicans for 10 years, and was in a leadership position for almost 20 years now. How does that article about polarization attempt to explain that? I don't think anyone thinks that he's caving to popular pressure or going further right; he's been incredibly outspoken about his goals and his tactics, and nothing I've seen indicates that it's because he's under pressure to go more polarized. That's all on him. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

How does that article about polarization attempt to explain that? I don't think anyone thinks that he's caving to popular pressure or going further right

If you don't think McConnell has gone hard right over the past..well, decade, you haven't been paying attention.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you should read the abstract and make the obvious deduction.  But no, you won't.

I've read it, several times now. I disagree with your idea that the premise "the polarization in the House has directly contributed to polarization in the Senate." infers that the House is as powerful or as important as the Senate. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, they're running attack ads against Pelosi - at equal and often greater measure.

Would that stop if she were not house speaker? It didn't stop for Clinton. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Anyway, my main problem about this, to reiterate, is we got 3 octogenarians come 2020 running the House - and they would be in the same spots  for 14 years at that point.  That's fucking pathetic to me, no matter how much you justify it.

Find someone better. Don't change your leader because the other guys are able to demonize a woman. US people hate women when they're in charge, and that's not going to change for a while. Pelosi is someone who is vilified because she's successful and powerful, and not gorgeous. She has no scandal, no corruption, no whiff of any issues - but she's hated anyway. 

Fuck 'em. I'm fine getting rid of her if there's someone better. I'm not fine getting rid of her because she's the pet ineffective boogeyman of people who believe Obama isn't a US citizen and Michelle Obama is horrible for wearing a sleeveless shirt. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Would that stop if she were not house speaker? It didn't stop for Clinton. 

1.  I disagree with the premise it "didn't stop" Clinton.  We don't have data to prove it yet, but I'll bet quite a bit that that Clinton was much less effective in 2018 than she was in 2016.

2.  Pelosi is not Clinton.  Trump doesn't want to lock her up.  Hell, he just offered her help.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Find someone better. Don't change your leader because the other guys are able to demonize a woman.

For, like, the eighteenth time, I agree.  No one has found anyone better.  And they're not likely to.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

US people hate women when they're in charge, and that's not going to change for a while. Pelosi is someone who is vilified because she's successful and powerful, and not gorgeous. She has no scandal, no corruption, no whiff of any issues - but she's hated anyway. 

But this is bullshit.  That leadership has been together for wayyy too long.  Look at the GOP leadership in 2006 and compare.  There's nothing wrong with challenging Pelosi, or Hoyer, or Clyburn, simply based on the fact they've been there way too long.  And, again, nobody is going to care about this except political junkies, so it doesn't matter.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you don't think McConnell has gone hard right over the past..well, decade, you haven't been paying attention.

He's gone further right, but not specifically over the last decade. Him stating point blank that he would obstruct Obama at every single turn was before the Tea Party, after all. To me it looks like he did it after 2002, when he first really won handily. That'd probably track well with GWB's turn and the post Clinton politics of the day. 

It's interesting to me that he's the least popular Senator out there and is the least popular in his own home state. I don't know if the dems could field an actual good candidate in 2020 to take his seat in Kentucky, but given his popularity it might be worth going for. Doesn't look that great for Dems given the politics in the state level (all controlled by R) and only one likely Dem as a house member, but maybe there's someone popular there?