US Politics: Paradise Lost

[Martell Spy]

20 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Mmmm, let's take a little perspective on this. Bill Clinton blew up the last pharmacutical plant in Sudan to distract from the Lewinsky hearings, and Obama (who was not above a bit of torture himself) is more associated in the Mid East with killing Muslims than Bush and Clinton put together. Hell, LBJ, who I otherwise admire more than any  other modern President sans FDR, kept us in Vietnam after he knew it was a losing war because he didn't want to have to tell the American people that he fucked up. Of course Richard Nixon topped them all when he undermined peace talks in that same war so he could use it as a candidate when he was running for President, which is probably more evil than anything any President has done in my lifetime, including Agent Orange in the White House atm. So I while I agree with the sentiment that the Republican party has been on the wrong side of history for some time, calling them all Nazi Scumbags is obtuse, and really just makes me see you as much the child as those drooling idiots in the red ballcaps. Not a moral equivalency, but your point is equally misguided when you paint with a broad brush.

Also worth noting, most of the people who have been standing up to Trump, from the FBI, to the Special Counsel, to the judiciary, have been Republicans as well.

The elected officials in the Republican party have all kowtowed to Trump, or are leaving/dead. Voting for these people is directly contributing to whatever further horrors Trump has planned. And it is not really clear if the SC with support Trump or how far. It is kind of up to Roberts at this point.

I can totally see voting Republican in 2000 and thinking you are voting for the party of Reagan and Bush Sr. People voting Republican 2004 and onward though are pretty fucking morally compromised. I was a moderate Democrat at the time, and the Bush gang's butcher shop was a big part of driving me leftward. 

I'm not going to debate the entire 20th century of presidential politics with you. But if you really want to compare Bush Jr. to Obama and Clinton, start with telling us what they did equal to the Iraq War fuck up. Yes, Obama did the drone-strikes. Was I supposed to vote for McCain, who was quite open about his hawkish tendencies? I mean, points for honesty, but I'm not that crazy, nor bloodthirsty. Did you vote for McCain? If you voted for Obama, why are you nailing me for Obama's policies, when you voted for them?

[Martell Spy]

23 hours ago, Triskele said:

Really?  I did not know the process but figured that it might be doable if the Senate went along given their role in approving nominees.  Relieved to know that it won't be that easy because why wouldn't Trump do it otherwise.  

I really think Roberts is probably, despite whatever other criticisms I might have of him, seriously alarmed by Trump.  And I'm hopeful that he's not going to be a reliable vote for Trump on something like the executive power issues that might be coming down the pipeline where there's so much reason to worry about Kavanaugh.  

Yeah, I saw it mentioned in an article after the whole Kavanaugh fracas. I was surprised as well that it is so easy to do, technically speaking. It basically requires majorities in both houses of Congress. (You likely have to have the votes to override a Presidential veto, however, if one occurs. I'm not sure on that, but it seems likely)

The thing is, like Obamacare repeal, just because you can technically do a thing does not mean it will actually happen. Public opinion can play a huge part. And even if you succeed, you may face a large backlash in the next election. 

As for why would Trump not do it? One, McConnell would not allow it. He's far too savvy an operator to do so. Also, Trump may not even know this option exists. People on Trump's team may know it's an option and purposely not be telling him. Plus, Republicans believe they have won the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 50 years. Why would they not just enjoy this enormous victory and personally outfit the local 20 year old females with Handmaid garb?

Criminal justice reform is currently not happening because McConnell has personally stopped it. And this is despite many powerful forces supporting it.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

The elected officials in the Republican party have all kowtowed to Trump, or are leaving/dead. Voting for these people is directly contributing to whatever further horrors Trump has planned.

I agree. That doesn't make half of our country "nazi scumbags" any more than it makes supporters of certain interpretations of Sharia "terrorists." Trump has fostered a cult of personality, and everyone in the GOP who turns on him loses to somebody worse when they're up for re-election. It's the same reason Eisenhower was so hesitant to stand up to Joe McCarthy during his Red Scare. McCarthy, like Trump, was a demagogue who had a connection with the voters that few else in the party did.

Quote

I'm not going to debate the entire 20th century of presidential politics with you. But if you really want to compare Bush Jr. to Obama and Clinton, start with telling us what they did equal to the Iraq War fuck up. Yes, Obama did the drone-strikes. Was I supposed to vote for McCain, who was quite open about his hawkish tendencies? I mean, points for honesty, but I'm not that crazy, nor bloodthirsty. Did you vote for McCain? If you voted for Obama, why are you nailing me for Obama's policies, when you voted for them?

I voted for McCain, yeah. But I was 18 and from a conservative family, and if I could do it over again having gotten a proper education since I'd certainly have voted for Obama. I'm not defending what Bush did in Iraq at all, though tbh I also can't help but scoff at the conventional wisdom that's taken hold that Iraq wasn't barreling towards being a full on failed state well before Bush was elected. I'm not even saying that Obama was some kind of a monster. I'm saying that being the American President means having blood on your hands no matter what. And I think that Bush and Obama were more similar to each other than either of them are to Trump. Does that make sense? Yes Bush was, literally, catastrophically stupid, and Obama was a little more realpolitik than I'd have liked, and they are by no means moral equivalents. But they both also had a sense of honor, in however fleeting degrees sometimes, that I just don't think exists in this current White House. And that isn't a meaningless distinction.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

The thread was moving so quickly immediately after the election that this may be retreading something that's already been pointed out but:

Not only did Walker lose in Wisconsin, but Dems won the governorship in Michigan and Pennsylvania too and also defended a Senate seat successfully in all three.  That's a really nice bounce back in those fabled three states from 2016.  I think there's some reason to hope that Trump winning those states was a special fluke, and if those three all go blue again it's a huge move back towards the Dem column.  I hesitate to say that ends Trump just because who knows if newly bluer states like Colorado and Virginia are totally safe blue or not.  

Florida may go solid blue over the next few cycles with the passage of Amendment 4.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

Just now, Triskele said:

I brought up this very thing several posts up, and a few folks here seemed to think that this thing wouldn't deliver all that many votes to the Dems.  But in a state that has often been extremely tight even if it delivered 100K +D in a POTUS year that would be significant.  I just don't know about solid blue significant.  

And not to be too macabre, but there is a historically solid voting bloc in Florida that's uh...starting to thin out, shall we say?

[BigFatCoward]

4 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

And not to be too macabre, but there is a historically solid voting bloc in Florida that's uh...starting to thin out, shall we say?

People get conservative as they age. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right wing government anywhere. There is always some former idealist who is now a cranky old bigot to fill the gaps. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Trump has fostered a cult of personality, and everyone in the GOP who turns on him loses to somebody worse when they're up for re-election.

That's a misnomer.  Trump underperformed Democratic comparables in terms of how many candidates he endorsed won, and was about the same if you only look at candidates he actually campaigned for.  The fact is Trump endorsed most of the GOP incumbents that lost (albeit he only campaigned for 13 losers).  Further, if you look at DW-NOMINATE scores, the GOP losers in the House we're slightly more "moderate" than the average Republican, but not by much.  Considering the partisan lean of most of their districts, they almost certainly should have defied Trump more frequently.

Perhaps you mean they'll get primaried, but that didn't happen either:

Quote

After the stunning primary losses of Reps. Joseph Crowley and Michael Capuano — both longtime incumbents with loads of clout in the Democratic Party — it’s easy to think of incumbents being swept out in record numbers. But that’s really not the case. So far this cycle, four House incumbents have lost primaries. In addition to Crowley and Capuano, Republicans Mark Sanford and Robert Pittenger also got booted this year. That’s about average for non-redistricting cycles, a little less than four members per year since 1968.

6 hours ago, Triskele said:

Not only did Walker lose in Wisconsin, but Dems won the governorship in Michigan and Pennsylvania too and also defended a Senate seat successfully in all three.  That's a really nice bounce back in those fabled three states from 2016.

Conveniently, the first link above has this comparison of those three states from 2016 GOP presidential vote to 2018 GOP gubernatorial vote:

• Pennsylvania:  2016 - 46.2%;  2018 - 40.8%
• Michigan:  2016 - 47.5%;  2018 - 44.1%
• Wisconsin:  2016 - 47.2%;  2018 - 48.4%

So good news in PA and Michigan, not so much in Wisconsin.  Of course, it should be noted Wisconsin had a Republican incumbent (Walker), while PA had a Democrat incumbent (Wolf) and Michigan was open.

4 hours ago, Triskele said:

I brought up this very thing several posts up, and a few folks here seemed to think that this thing wouldn't deliver all that many votes to the Dems.  But in a state that has often been extremely tight even if it delivered 100K +D in a POTUS year that would be significant.

Problem is there's too many unknowns about registration, turnout, partisan split, and then the very likely occurrence of Florida GOP leaders trying to purge these new voters from the rolls, as they've done in the past.  To get to a 100K +D, you'd have to assume half of the purported 600K actually vote, and then among them Dems win 2 to 1.  Those are very optimistic projections.  And even under that rosy scenario, while Hillary lost to Trump by only 1.2% in 2016, that constitutes a margin of nearly 113 thousand votes.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

People get conservative as they age. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right wing government anywhere. There is always some former idealist who is now a cranky old bigot to fill the gaps. 

Yeah, but the definition of conservativism also changes as each generation becomes (usually) more progressive than the last (if not always more liberal). Younger conservatives are more likely to believe in global warming, and they don't want their retirement property under water, to pick one example. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's a misnomer.  Trump underperformed Democratic comparables in terms of how many candidates he endorsed won, and was about the same if you only look at candidates he actually campaigned for.  The fact is Trump endorsed most of the GOP incumbents that lost (albeit he only campaigned for 13 losers).  

You're talking about the general elections, I was referring to the primaries. 

[DMC]

54 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

You're talking about the general elections, I was referring to the primaries. 

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you mean they'll get primaried, but that didn't happen either:

 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

 

They did tho... 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

They did tho... 

Not to any more substantial rate than they had before.  What are your examples?  It's important to keep in mind that we've been talking about GOP incumbents getting primaried since 2010 - and there were a lot more prominent examples in cycles since than there were in 2018 - in terms of such efforts being successful.  So it's definitely a "who's leading whom?" question, and it's entirely possible (if not probable) the GOP primary electorate would be getting more and more conservative regardless of Trump.  Point is, there's no actual evidence GOP incumbents should be particularly scared of defying Trump.  Are they?  Clearly, yes, but that's cuz they're stupid.

[Axrendale]

From what I'm reading, the insurgency in the Democratic House caucus against Nancy Pelosi's return to the Speakership is still refusing to give up the fight. This depresses me.

I'm far from the world's biggest Pelosi fan, but the idea of having anyone but her in charge of the Congressional Dems for the next two years is nuts. It's a harbinger of my biggest fear about U.S. politics right now: that the Democrats are somehow going to find a way to screw this up (again).

It's nice to bask in the afterglow of the midterms, but I'm really dreading the upcoming contest for the Presidential nomination.

Does anyone have any bets about who will be the first (serious) candidate to openly declare their intentions?

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

People get conservative as they age. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right wing government anywhere. There is always some former idealist who is now a cranky old bigot to fill the gaps. 

I think this old saw: “people get more conservative as they age” is only about half true and not representative of the causality creating this outcome

what is responsible?

I’d  say it’s that mortality tracks to income level and mortality tracks to race and mortality tracks to education level—and partisanship tracks to income level and race and education level.

that is to say, poor democrats of color die younger than rich and middle class white republicans.

and the poor, often uneducated, whites who die younger are from the cohort of whites least likely to be regular voters.

so the deaths in the white population, and in the non white populations, are located in areas that will cause a gradual measurable shift to more republican partisanship with increasing age as the rich white college educated republicans will be the last to die.

[Martell Spy]

10 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I agree. That doesn't make half of our country "nazi scumbags" any more than it makes supporters of certain interpretations of Sharia "terrorists." Trump has fostered a cult of personality, and everyone in the GOP who turns on him loses to somebody worse when they're up for re-election. It's the same reason Eisenhower was so hesitant to stand up to Joe McCarthy during his Red Scare. McCarthy, like Trump, was a demagogue who had a connection with the voters that few else in the party did.

I voted for McCain, yeah. But I was 18 and from a conservative family, and if I could do it over again having gotten a proper education since I'd certainly have voted for Obama. I'm not defending what Bush did in Iraq at all, though tbh I also can't help but scoff at the conventional wisdom that's taken hold that Iraq wasn't barreling towards being a full on failed state well before Bush was elected. I'm not even saying that Obama was some kind of a monster. I'm saying that being the American President means having blood on your hands no matter what. And I think that Bush and Obama were more similar to each other than either of them are to Trump. Does that make sense? Yes Bush was, literally, catastrophically stupid, and Obama was a little more realpolitik than I'd have liked, and they are by no means moral equivalents. But they both also had a sense of honor, in however fleeting degrees sometimes, that I just don't think exists in this current White House. And that isn't a meaningless distinction.

I would say calling Bush Jr. honorable is really stretching it. He sent out Colin Powell to convincingly lie to the American people for his own gain, and burning up Powell's reputation in the process. He gave the OK for racist slurs to be used against McCain in the primary campaign. Bush Jr. was not a racist or an islamophobe, but you can be not be those things and still do all sorts of horrible things. Part of the problem of Trump is that he is so horrible that the bar is set so very low for everyone else, including and especially Bush Jr. 

There are some real parallels with Bush Jr. and Trump. They are both idiotic plutocrats who prior to elected office never earned a job on their own merits, but had it handed to them by Daddy.

I will admit that I don't actually believe that tens of millions of Americans actually have swastika tattoo on their back. But, I am definitely confused and horrified by the voting choices of many. There is a white nationalist adviser named Stephen Miller in the White House. So far, Trump has allowed Miller a broad range of power to bring racist fantasies into actual policy in the United States. And despite the election loss, there is no sign that it is stopping or that Trump blames Miller for the loss. It really doesn't get very clearer than this. Republican votes will put power directly into Miller's hands, and people will suffer for it. And yet, Republican turnout was high in 2018.

[Kalbear]

 

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Not to any more substantial rate than they had before.  What are your examples?  It's important to keep in mind that we've been talking about GOP incumbents getting primaried since 2010 - and there were a lot more prominent examples in cycles since than there were in 2018 - in terms of such efforts being successful.  So it's definitely a "who's leading whom?" question, and it's entirely possible (if not probable) the GOP primary electorate would be getting more and more conservative regardless of Trump.  Point is, there's no actual evidence GOP incumbents should be particularly scared of defying Trump.  Are they?  Clearly, yes, but that's cuz they're stupid.

Chances are good they would have, however, if they didn't retire first. Your analysis ignores the record amount of retirees from the house and senate.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Chances are good they would have, however, if they didn't retire first. Your analysis ignores the record amount of retirees from the house and senate.

As I've said before, there's a certain amount of endogeneity with retirements.  I.E. - does one retire because they defied Trump and thus fear a primary challenge, or did they already fear a primary challenge so then they feel free to defy Trump because they're retiring anyway? 

You're right, looking at this with retirements in the House would take more research/data than I currently know of, but let's look at the two Senate examples.  Flake definitely went after Trump, and Corker to a lesser extent, but does that mean they would have lost primaries if they ran?  Well, I'd say in Corker's case Blackburn was going to challenge him regardless of Trump.  And in Flake's case, Ward would have challenged him regardless as well.  In that case, McSally beat Ward.  So I think it's very difficult to say retirements are directly a result of defying or fearing Trump.  The large number of retirements was much more likely due to those GOP members understanding the conditions were very disadvantageous - which Trump's low approval is in part responsible for, so no reason to fear him there - as it usually is.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Axrendale said:

From what I'm reading, the insurgency in the Democratic House caucus against Nancy Pelosi's return to the Speakership is still refusing to give up the fight. This depresses me.

I'm far from the world's biggest Pelosi fan, but the idea of having anyone but her in charge of the Congressional Dems for the next two years is nuts. It's a harbinger of my biggest fear about U.S. politics right now: that the Democrats are somehow going to find a way to screw this up (again).

It's nice to bask in the afterglow of the midterms, but I'm really dreading the upcoming contest for the Presidential nomination.

Does anyone have any bets about who will be the first (serious) candidate to openly declare their intentions?

Republican Gov. John Kasich, who unsuccessfully ran against President Trump in 2016, joins "This Week" to discuss the possibility of challenging the president in 2020.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

You're right, looking at this with retirements in the House would take more research/data than I currently know of, but let's look at the two Senate examples.  Flake definitely went after Trump, and Corker to a lesser extent, but does that mean they would have lost primaries if they ran?  Well, I'd say in Corker's case Blackburn was going to challenge him regardless of Trump.  And in Flake's case, Ward would have challenged him regardless as well.  In that case, McSally beat Ward.  So I think it's very difficult to say retirements are directly a result of defying or fearing Trump.  The large number of retirements was much more likely due to those GOP members understanding the conditions were very disadvantageous - which Trump's low approval is in part responsible for, so no reason to fear him there - as it usually is.

McSally also went heavily towards Trump in her primary and went against prior stated goals and outcomes - which was then used against her in the general (hah) but mostly, indicated that she at least thought she needed to go that way, and the outcome came out in her favor. 

There's also the governor races that went heavily in favor of Trump over moderates (DeSantis, Kemp, a couple others right?). And while you're right that you can't blame everything on Trump, we had more Republicans retire in this congress than ever before, and a lot of them have become significantly more outspoken about him after announcing their retirement. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

McSally also went heavily towards Trump in her primary and went against prior stated goals and outcomes - which was then used against her in the general (hah) but mostly, indicated that she at least thought she needed to go that way, and the outcome came out in her favor.

Sure.  What's the point here?  If Flake ran he would have had to be more pro-Trump?  Well, yeah, he couldn't write a book warning people about him, thought that's a given.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's also the governor races that went heavily in favor of Trump over moderates (DeSantis, Kemp, a couple others right?).

Yeah DeSantis is a fair example.  As for Kemp, I don't like using that.  The Georgia GOP is going to be insanely conservative.  It will always be very far right.  Same thing with Tennessee by the way, which is why I think Blackburn would've beat Corker no matter who was president if Corker ran.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And while you're right that you can't blame everything on Trump, we had more Republicans retire in this congress than ever before, and a lot of them have become significantly more outspoken about him after announcing their retirement. 

Of course - the amount of retirements has to do with Trump.  But whether it has to do with them defying or betraying Trump is an entirely different question.  As for members being more outspoken after announcing their retirement, I'm shocked..shocked!