Jump to content
Kalbear

US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Interesting UCLA study of Latino voters in 2018.

It shows a mixed bag for Democrats with regard to Latino voters.  In California, Arizona and Texas, Latino participation is increasing faster than non-Latinos, and this probably put Democrats over the top for the AZ senate race as well as numerous House races.  There's reason to expect that as the Latino population in AZ and TX continues to expand, those voters will turn those states purple, and that change may happen soon. 

The bad news is that in FL and GA, the same cannot be said.  In spite of increasing Latino populations in both states, there was no real correlation between % of Latino voters in a district and an increase in voter participation vs 2014 in Florida.  In addition, exit polls in Florida and Georgia showed that Nelson, Gillum and Abrams all won Latino voters statewide by ~10 points, which is frankly, terrible - far below the nationwide average.  Given how close all of those races were, there's every reason to think that this shortfall in Latino voters made the difference between winning and losing.  Democrats need to do some real outreach to Latino communities in FL and GA to make sure they are included in the overall Democratic message ahead of 2020. 

This study is utterly meaningless, because it oversimplifies things. It lumps Mexican-Americans (which are predominant in California and western states) and Cuban-Americans (which are predominant in Florida) into a single "Latino" category, while ignoring the huge differences in political priorities and voting history of these groups, and then attempts to make an overarching conclusion from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 9:01 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Of course there's no way he's actually genuine about wanting to work together to get things done.

Yeah, its kind of like a Stag Hunt sort of situation, which if I recall correctly has two Nash equilibrium. One equilibrium is cooperation, while the the other is non cooperation. Which equilibrium obtains depends upon each party having the correct set of beliefs about what the other party will do.

And there is no reason for Democrats to believe that Republicans will cooperate or are genuine about "working together" (and according their best response is non-cooperation). And "Beltway Centrist" types who love "bi-partisanship" should understand that is not reasonable for them to expect Democrats to believe that the Republicans are remotely genuine, at this juncture, about "working together".

At some point, Charlie Brown has got to learn that Lucy ain't going to hold the football.
Or as expressed by one great mind, "'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think there's another bit of calculus to consider. 

Both Clinton and Obama waited until 2008 to run, even though both were considered reasonable alternatives. Dems may (rightly) be fearful of beating an incumbent, and don't want to waste their shot. My suspicion is that this will narrow things down somewhat naturally if someone thinks they'll be better off (and are young enough) to go later. I'm not sure it'll work that way for Beto, but I could see someone like Harris or Booker waiting. 

The other thing is that it's been a long time since Dems had a lot of candidates run at any given time. They were the big leaders back in the 70s (with 16 candidates!) but since then I think the most they've had was 7 official ones, and I think that as much as people joke about it, Dems are a bit better at coordinating and figuring out about who should run and not. 

Neither Harris nor Booker will wait. Trump, incumbent or not, is beatable in their eyes, based on 2018, based on his low approval rating and based on all his scandals. Both of them are already hitting Iowa and NH and signaling they're going to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some comedy. Ah, so all it will take is lawyers, guns, and money.

Biden Should Run on a Unity Ticket With Romney
It could totally work. Here’s how.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/11/biden-2020-running-mate-romney-222861

Quote

 

Now here’s what Biden should do next: Pick a Republican running mate in a “trans-party” third-party run for the White House.

Should Trump run again, this could be a “break-the-glass” moment for many Americans, creating an opening for a radical departure from our malfunctioning two-party political system. By injecting some ideological innovation into the process, we can break the hidebound precedents of two narrow parties running their ceremonious and illogical nominating process to select a candidate.

 

Quote

with the right candidates, these legal and logistical hurdles are surmountable. All it takes is lawyering and money.

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think if she got the nomination in 2008 she probably would have won. Obama should have been her vice (if that alternative history could be played out), and Obama probably would have walked into the White House in 2016, albeit probably only for one term. 4 terms straight of a single party holding the White House is pretty rare, and unprecedented post WW2.

Not that it matters, but 2008 was a supercharged year for Democrats, there's no way McCain beats Clinton.  However, in a theoretical Clinton/Obama ticket, I think that they lose in 2012 to Romney (or possibly a different opponent) with how bad the economy still was in 2012.  2008 Obama crushed it on easy mode, but 2012 was a really challenging election (probably more difficult than 2016 for Dems) and I don't think Clinton could have pulled it off.

9 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Biden got eight years of image rehabilitation as Obama's VP. The buddy comedy memes featuring them are a big differentiator from Kerry.

Definitely this.  That's also why I think that Biden has a real chance of winning a lot of the african american vote -  he is associated strongly with Obama and African Americans have been more establishment friendly than most Democratic primary voters (ie picking Clinton over Sanders in 2016). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, a Biden-Romney ticket. That would excite exactly 0 people (well, maybe 1 person, the writer of that fever-dream inspired article). I mean, I have already committed to voting for a progressive in the primaries and whatever lukewarm candidate the Democrats throw up in 2020, but this combination of bland and blander is really too milquetoast for me. I could go on, but I've run out of synonyms for boring.

Share this post


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

Oh man, a Biden-Romney ticket. That would excite exactly 0 people (well, maybe 1 person, the writer of that fever-dream inspired article). I mean, I have already committed to voting for a progressive in the primaries and whatever lukewarm candidate the Democrats throw up in 2020, but this combination of bland and blander is really too milquetoast for me. I could go on, but I've run out of synonyms for boring.

That is unfair and untrue. Just think of the many children and grandchildren Mittens has. I'd wager that tank would be properly excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Oh man, a Biden-Romney ticket. That would excite exactly 0 people (well, maybe 1 person, the writer of that fever-dream inspired article). I mean, I have already committed to voting for a progressive in the primaries and whatever lukewarm candidate the Democrats throw up in 2020, but this combination of bland and blander is really too milquetoast for me. I could go on, but I've run out of synonyms for boring.

I feel like, if anything, articles like that serve to sabotage Biden.  Romney may be more popular with Democrats than Trump, but he is NOT popular.  If Biden wanted an "independent/republican" for a unity ticket (which I doubt), Romney would be a horrible choice.  Biden ran against Romney in 2012 and I've no doubt there are hundreds of clips of Biden talking about how unfit Romney is to be president. 

The only "unity ticket" that would even be possible would be an establishment/moderate Dem and a moderate Republican Governor, like Hogan or Baker.  I still think that would be a losing choice, but at least Hogan can say something like "Democrats in Maryland like me, so obviously you should consider it too". 

Regardless, nobody likes unity tickets except political writers.  They are really great for being everyone second choice, which is a recipe for no votes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

I think that conventional wisdom comes from where Democrats need to win.  If the goal was to win the popular vote, I think that an inspirational firebrand would be what you want, and frankly I would expect him/her to crush Trump.  But such a candidate would be really great at juicing up votes from liberals and minorities, but there aren't enough of them in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/Minnesota/New Hampshire to win those states with them alone.  Could they potentially make up those votes elsewhere?  Maybe, but the path gets a LOT narrower.  If you lose those states, you could pick up AZ and FL and still lose the election.  Where else could you win?  GA?  I'd much rather try and compete for Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Some comedy. Ah, so all it will take is lawyers, guns, and money.

Biden Should Run on a Unity Ticket With Romney
It could totally work. Here’s how.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/11/biden-2020-running-mate-romney-222861

 

The author of this piece should get a nomination for hackiest hack of 2018.

Quote

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Nor I, considering Trump is pretty unpopular with independents, including in the key states in the Rust Belt, plus certain areas of the Midwest and Southwest, IIRC.

Seems more like a drastic overreaction to their own fears or playing to their own biases, ala those “Third Way” jerks who deigned to go among regular people with the goal of proving their thesis that nobody cares about political labels and just want to work together to solve problems right, found their ideas rejected time and again, then put out a report saying they were right all along complete with lots of back patting.

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


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

Because Biden still hasn't been the nominee before.  And yes, as you suggested, Biden is perceived to appeal more to the Obama-Trump voters whereas Kerry's public perception is pretty much cemented as a Massachusetts liberal.

He's best known as the guy not tough enough, who folded  without a murmur, to the rethugs in Florida back in 2004, after which we never heard from him again until he took over as Sec of State from Hillary -- and even then we didn't hear from him, his voice, like we'd heard Hillary's.

In the meantime AOC shows herself and her organization truly tough cookies.  Right now, the people who made her campaign organization have a campaign to take on both the governor and they mayor over the deal they made in secret with amazon -- disgraceful, disgusting, expensive in every way, from displacing people from their homes via eminent domain, to wear and tear on already endangered infrastructure, paying no taxes, etc.  NYers HATE this deal -- NYers who aren't the stock, share holders or on Wall Street, HATE it.  It's a big give-away at our expense.  Cuomo and de Blasio are both gob-smacked. They didn't think anybody would challenge their fait accompli.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

Share this post


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

If recent history has taught us anything it's that waiting is basically never a good idea.  I do think electability will be a focal point though.  At least I hope so.

To get back to this, Warren is a prime example. I honestly think she could have won the primary and the general in 2016, but it’s looking like her moment passed her by. A few polls came out over the last couple of days and she is not performing well. It would seem that likely primary voters have already moved on from her, and I suspect she’ll be among the first “big names” to drop out.  

Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Biden doesn’t run. I think he just wants some attention and the opportunity to a potential king maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

Maybe someone will tell Trump that the COS position doesn't have to be filled, and he'll declare he doesn't need one anymore. Then Javanka will essentially do that role between them, but not officially. That'll work out greeeeaaat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

Honestly, Ivanka might be the only person on the planet that can tell Trump he’s wrong and make him believe it. He idolizes her in a not at all creepy way. As idiotic as it sounds, it might actually be a net positive. Plus she can just higher an assistant to do all the actual duties of the CoS that don’t pertain to telling the president the hard truths.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Trebla said:

Michael Cohen is going to the pokey.

 

So is that a harsh or a lenient sentence? That's a serious question, as in I have no idea what he would've gotten without his cooperation, and whether that discount he received on his sentence was generous or in line with what was to be expected.

Share this post


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

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

Its hard to make comparisons across states, but I think a lot of this conventional wisdom comes from the fact that this past election the high-profile centrist candidates had more success than the high-profile base-exciting ones. Sinema and Rosen won, Evers and Whitmer won; Beto lost, Abrams and Gillium lost (Nelson did too, though by less than Gillium). This isn't a totally fair comparison since different states have varying degrees of openness to voting Democratic. Although at the same time, maybe any candidate would've done as well as Beto in Texas this year, we just don't know.

 

As for Biden, I'm now thinking he'd only run if it was coronation, and it clearly won't be a coronation. Apparently he hasn't sounded like a potential candidate in his recent speeches either; being really focused on specific topics of events (like cancer research) and not generally not making broader, politically-focused remarks. I think Sanders does run, but does significantly worse than a lot of people are expecting. I don't think Kerry or Warren run in the end.

I strongly suspect the nominee will be Beto, Harris, or Booker, or whichever one of the younger non-senate folks has a really strong stretch of viral speeches in Fall 2019 (Castro, Garcetti, Gabbard, etc.) 'cause there's almost certainly going to be one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So is that a harsh or a lenient sentence? That's a serious question, as in I have no idea what he would've gotten without his cooperation, and whether that discount he received on his sentence was generous or in line with what was to be expected.

Hard to say. I think some people thought he'd get less because of how much he cooperated with the Mueller investigation; but, as the SDNY made clear, he has not been cooperative on the taxi medallion-mob stuff. 

Also, worth noting, the judge agreed to recommend that Cohen serve at Otisville (the minimum security camp, not the medium security prison next to it), which is pretty widely considered the cushiest federal prison around and the go-to desired destination for white collar criminals. From a 2012 article on it:

Quote

 

The prison’s store doubles as a delicatessen, serving up such favorites as rib steak, gefilte fish, salmon, chorizo and smoked oysters.

It’s just a 90-minute drive for visitors from New York City, and it boasts boccie courts, horseshoe pits and enough room to play soccer.

Altman, who has spent time in six prisons since his 1989 conviction for running an interstate prostitution ring, said convicts could stay up until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights watching HBO, Showtime and Cinemax.

The low-security camp that’s connected with Otisville’s 1,200-inmate medium-security complex is exclusive too, housing only about 125 felons, two to a cell.

Memorial Day and the Fourth of July are celebrated with cookouts serving hamburgers, hot dogs, watermelon and potato salad.


“The food is right. The commissary is right. The officers don’t bother you. There are a lot of courses you can take. You had weights inside and outside, free weights and machines,” Altman said.

 

 

Share this post


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

×