U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Rosenstein, once Barr comes on, won't be in charge of Mueller in any way, shape or form. The only reason he was staying was because he was in charge. 

That may or may not be true. Barr could very easily say you handle the day to day oversight but I want to be informed in any major decisions. Regardless, Barr isn't going to fire Mueller.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maithanet said:

Sure, there's no question where Trump really stands on immigration or where his instincts lie.  But he's got to be thinking about 2020 at this point, and unless Trump has a plan not to have competitive elections in 22 months*, then any pollster can see that Trump will need to win votes from 2016 Reluctant Trump voters (depends on the poll you look at but at least 15% or so or ~10 million voters in 2016) and 2016 third party voters (another 7.7 million voters). 

I don't think that matters to him, because in his mind he's doing a great job. Things like data and polling don't matter to him unless they show he's doing well. He's even more convinced of this after what happened in 2016, where in his mind EVERYONE said Clinton would win. Why should he believe these things now? He'll keep doing what he does, and it'll work out for him, because it always does. 

Every single time people have said that he'll pivot once he sees the real things going on. Every single time people have been wrong. Stop underestimating the level of narcissistic delusion he has. 

Just now, Maithanet said:

If he doesn't get significant votes from those groups, he loses, guaranteed.  Now, he won't appeal to those groups all the time, his primary focus will be his base.  But if he sticks with his current strategy of "only my hardcore base matters" ALL the time, his approval rating is never going to stay in the low 40s.  He was lucky to win the presidency with 46% of the vote in 2016, there's no path for him to win with 43%. 

* Not out of the question, I'll admit. But declaring an emergency such that elections could be completely suspended isn't easy or without risks, even for someone as amoral as Trump. 

Maybe? You have a lot more faith in polling numbers against a nonexistent opponent with 2 years to go than I do. I have a lot more faith in taking Trump at his word and understanding what narcissistic sociopaths do and how they think. 

Plus, here's our situation. Right now, Trump is willing to declare a national emergency to build a decades-long project based on a nonexistent crisis that he largely manufactured with his own policies, all over $5bn, just so he doesn't have to give something away and can appear that he won. What do you think he'll do when he might face an actual loss?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That may or may not be true. Barr could very easily say you handle the day to day oversight but I want to be informed in any major decisions. Regardless, Barr isn't going to fire Mueller.

I suspect you're wrong, especially if Trump tells him to. And Trump will almost certainly tell him to.

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect you're wrong, especially if Trump tells him to. And Trump will almost certainly tell him to.

Trump doesn't tell anyone directly to do anything and I very much doubt Barr is taking that job just to come under immense heat for firing Mueller due to Trump telling him to knowing history. Don't buy it.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Trump doesn't tell anyone directly to do anything and I very much doubt Barr is taking that job just to come under immense heat for firing Mueller due to Trump telling him to knowing history. Don't buy it.

Counterpoint: Barr has seen people like Kelly and Mattis and McMaster and Rosenstein under Trump, has seen how he treats them, and has seen how he treated Sessions. If you think he's going into it with the firm idea that he's going to oppose Trump's choices despite the evidence of the last two years, I think you're high.

Really, ANYONE who takes a job under Trump at this point is going in with the notion that they can't change Trump, that they can at best do things they want to do as long as it somewhat aligns with Trumpian views and they don't give him shit, and they're corrupt as hell from the start. If you have evidence to the contrary, cool beans, but we got rid of the 'I'm doing this to curb Trump' crowd a long time ago. Now we have the incompetent, the corrupt, and the sycophants. Your choice what Barr is. 

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Maybe? You have a lot more faith in polling numbers against a nonexistent opponent with 2 years to go than I do. I have a lot more faith in taking Trump at his word and understanding what narcissistic sociopaths do and how they think. 

Plus, here's our situation. Right now, Trump is willing to declare a national emergency to build a decades-long project based on a nonexistent crisis that he largely manufactured with his own policies, all over $5bn, just so he doesn't have to give something away and can appear that he won. What do you think he'll do when he might face an actual loss?

I think 2018 demonstrated pretty clearly that IF Trump had been up for reelection in 2018, he would have lost against any Democratic frontrunner like Biden/Harris/whoever.  Now, obviously a lot can change in two years, but I strongly agree with this 538 article that "Trump's base isn't enough."  In order to win the EC, Trump needs a decent percentage of the two groups that I mentioned:  Reluctant Trump voters and 2016 third party voters.  HOW Trump tries to appeal to those people remains to be seen.  It doesn't necessarily mean moderating his policies, it's possible he thinks that going pure Strongman will be enough.  But he definitely needs them.

As for the second question, I think things are going to get really bad, and I do think it's just a matter of when, not if, Trump declares a national emergency to gain additional power.  But there are way too many factors to say exactly how that will play out.  Which is why I'm sticking to the more straightforward electoral analysis of how Trump gets (or hopefully) fails to get to 270 EVs. 

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Counterpoint: Barr has seen people like Kelly and Mattis and McMaster and Rosenstein under Trump, has seen how he treats them, and has seen how he treated Sessions. If you think he's going into it with the firm idea that he's going to oppose Trump's choices despite the evidence of the last two years, I think you're high.

Really, ANYONE who takes a job under Trump at this point is going in with the notion that they can't change Trump, that they can at best do things they want to do as long as it somewhat aligns with Trumpian views and they don't give him shit, and they're corrupt as hell from the start. If you have evidence to the contrary, cool beans, but we got rid of the 'I'm doing this to curb Trump' crowd a long time ago. Now we have the incompetent, the corrupt, and the sycophants. Your choice what Barr is. 

Not going to argue further. I just think you're wrong and time will tell. I think Mueller's investigation is impossible to stop at this point and I don't think Barr would have the needed cause to fire him publicly even if Trump directly asked him.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I know Bill professionally.  Bill is a smart guy and nobody's puppet.  I can't tell you what he's going to do in any way, shape or form, but Bill is certainly more than qualified for the job, not a dumb dumb bear, and must be perfectly conscious of the gestalt of the situation.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think 2018 demonstrated pretty clearly that IF Trump had been up for reelection in 2018, he would have lost against any Democratic frontrunner like Biden/Harris/whoever. 

Don't mistake midterm results for general elections. Republicans were convinced that anyone they put up against Obama would win, too, in 2012. It is very, very hard to win against an incumbent POTUS. 

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Now, obviously a lot can change in two years, but I strongly agree with this 538 article that "Trump's base isn't enough."  In order to win the EC, Trump needs a decent percentage of the two groups that I mentioned:  Reluctant Trump voters and 2016 third party voters.  HOW Trump tries to appeal to those people remains to be seen.  It doesn't necessarily mean moderating his policies, it's possible he thinks that going pure Strongman will be enough.  But he definitely needs them.

Alternately, he needs to repress enough of the other vote to make his count more. This is the strategy that the GOP is going hard on now. 

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Not going to argue further. I just think you're wrong and time will tell. I think Mueller's investigation is impossible to stop at this point and I don't think Barr would have the needed cause to fire him publicly even if Trump directly asked him.

Again, you have a lot more optimism that someone who Trump picked is going to be particularly good about, well, anything. A better question to ask is this: if Barr said he won't fire Mueller, why did Trump want him in the first place? What IS his role going to be, and why does Trump actually want him? Especially given his hatred of Jeff Sessions? 

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I know Bill professionally.  Bill is a smart guy and nobody's puppet.  I can't tell you what he's going to do in any way, shape or form, but Bill is certainly more than qualified for the job, not a dumb dumb bear, and must be perfectly conscious of the gestalt of the situation.

So was Mattis, Kelly, McMasters. I'm sure he's a smart guy. Given his experience under Bush I'm not sure he's a good guy, but I'm sure he's smart. That doesn't matter. What matters is what he'll do when pushed by Trump, and what Trump thinks he's getting. Trump is the guy who asked Comey for a personal loyalty pledge. He asks his cabinet to go around the room and publicly praise him. What will Barr do, and what does Trump think he'll do?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Don't mistake midterm results for general elections. Republicans were convinced that anyone they put up against Obama would win, too, in 2012. It is very, very hard to win against an incumbent POTUS. 

Alternately, he needs to repress enough of the other vote to make his count more. This is the strategy that the GOP is going hard on now. 

Again, you have a lot more optimism that someone who Trump picked is going to be particularly good about, well, anything. A better question to ask is this: if Barr said he won't fire Mueller, why did Trump want him in the first place? What IS his role going to be, and why does Trump actually want him? Especially given his hatred of Jeff Sessions? 

So was Mattis, Kelly, McMasters. I'm sure he's a smart guy. Given his experience under Bush I'm not sure he's a good guy, but I'm sure he's smart. That doesn't matter. What matters is what he'll do when pushed by Trump, and what Trump thinks he's getting. Trump is the guy who asked Comey for a personal loyalty pledge. He asks his cabinet to go around the room and publicly praise him. What will Barr do, and what does Trump think he'll do?

Well, we don't know, but I'm not sure Trump does either....

[maarsen]

I just found out that AOC has had an asteroid named after her. How cool is that? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, we don't know, but I'm not sure Trump does either....

Trump THINKS he knows though. Trump hired Barr after firing Comey, firing Sessions, and getting pissed at Rosenstein and firing a whole lot of other people - because they wouldn't be personally loyal to Trump. He has personally gone to the acting AG and bitched about an ongoing investigation INTO HIS OWN PERSON. 

To me, this suggests the following about Trump and Barr: either Barr has given Trump his loyalty honestly, and will be protecting Trump as best he can and following his orders as best he can, or Barr lied to Trump and will be doing something on his own knowing Trump is going to get more and more pissed at him for it. 

I don't know which of the two is more likely, honestly, but I think the idea that Barr's going into this openly stating to Trump that he will keep Mueller around and not get rid of it is obviously wrong on its face, because Trump would never accept someone like that as his AG. Trump openly wants an AG that deflects issues from Trump; that is his first and biggest goal. Whether Barr will do that or not, I don't know - but Trump almost certainly THINKS that he got that. And given what happens to people in the admin, I'm inclined to bet on that being the case as well. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, he needs to repress enough of the other vote to make his count more. This is the strategy that the GOP is going hard on now.

I've no doubt.  But Republicans have been doing voter suppression in various forms for the past twenty years at least (it won them Florida in 2000 after all).  And in spite of this, the 2018 midterm had the highest midterm turnout since women were given the vote.  Or if you want to just look at presidential elections, the number of voters has increased every election.  It is going to require some new and much more obvious tools in order to significantly suppress the vote in 2020 beyond what was done in the past.  And I doubt very much that the Democratic governors in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina are going to take that lying down. 

Trump can and will try to suppress the vote, both legally and illegally.  But I'm very skeptical that this alone can hand him the election if he's still polling at/below 42%. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

HOW Trump tries to appeal to those people remains to be seen. 

Honestly, how many people have you met or seen say they didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 but they will in 2020? Outside of the random NPR caller once a month, I haven’t encountered anyone. He has done nothing to increase his voter share, so as long as Democrats nominate a good candidate, they should be fine assuming the election is free and fair. Sadly both of those assumptions could fail….

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I know Bill professionally.  Bill is a smart guy and nobody's puppet.  I can't tell you what he's going to do in any way, shape or form, but Bill is certainly more than qualified for the job, not a dumb dumb bear, and must be perfectly conscious of the gestalt of the situation.

Lawyers, much like politicians, have a bit of an actor in them. It’s quite common to read either’s bios and find they were into theater when they were younger. Any chance Barr was putting on an act to get the nomination, or do you think he believes his past comments, because they’re at odds with what is just being reported?

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've no doubt.  But Republicans have been doing voter suppression in various forms for the past twenty years at least (it won them Florida in 2000 after all).  And in spite of this, the 2018 midterm had the highest midterm turnout since women were given the vote.  Or if you want to just look at presidential elections, the number of voters has increased every election.  It is going to require some new and much more obvious tools in order to significantly suppress the vote in 2020 beyond what was done in the past.  And I doubt very much that the Democratic governors in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina are going to take that lying down. 

Conversely, look at what happened in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as far as turnout. Turnout was incredibly high - but much like 2016, a lot of that turnout was in the wrong place electorally. 

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump can and will try to suppress the vote, both legally and illegally.  But I'm very skeptical that this alone can hand him the election if he's still polling at/below 42%. 

Possibly true, though the chances of him staying at 41% for the next two years are not particularly good. Reagan at this point in his presidency was the same value as Trump. Clinton wasn't much higher. What's interesting to me is that his disapproval rate is the highest of anyone, ever - and the only person close to him was Reagan. 

Also remember that what boosted Clinton's ratings the most other than the economy was him being impeached.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lawyers, much like politicians, have a bit of an actor in them. It’s quite common to read either’s bios and find they were into theater when they were younger. Any chance Barr was putting on an act to get the nomination, or do you think he believes his past comments, because they’re at odds with what is just being reported?

I think he plays a good hand of poker.  I think more broadly (i) he doesn't have to prove anything to anybody, (ii) he's confirmable - I mean he's done the job before, (iii) crucially, he knows how the DOJ is set up internally and how everything "works" and (iv) he's well aware of the current and future scrutiny on his role.  How he plays his hand is an entirely different question.  But to somehow think that he is not capable of independent action or will definitively act as a rubber stamp is too crude an analysis.  I do not doubt that many (most) of the participants in this forum will disagree with a lot (all) of the things he does, but I also think that he's playing chess, not checkers here, and possibly 3D chess.  He will not be ineffective whatever he does, and I would guess he will be more inclined towards laser surgery rather than a sledgehammer.  So, you know, I don't personally see a Mueller removal, because that's a sledgehammer, and a checkers move.  What he does do (whatever it is) may well be way more effective in terms of defending the executive branch.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Conversely, look at what happened in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as far as turnout. Turnout was incredibly high - but much like 2016, a lot of that turnout was in the wrong place electorally.

huh?  Are you talking about 2018 or 2016?  2018 Democrats didn't suffer from turnout being in the wrong place electorally.  Running up the score in places like California, New York and Virginia absolutely helped them pick up as many House seats as they did.  And high turnout helped them win statewide races in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, really everywhere but Florida. 

And as for 2016, yes the Electoral College helped Trump, but that's no guarantee it will help him again.  The EC fluctuates from year to year, so it's impossible to say if it will help or hurt him.  If Democrats pick someone who is more popular in the midwest or in Florida than they are in the rest of the country, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the EC is making things harder for Trump. 

Quote

Possibly true, though the chances of him staying at 41% for the next two years are not particularly good. Reagan at this point in his presidency was the same value as Trump. Clinton wasn't much higher. What's interesting to me is that his disapproval rate is the highest of anyone, ever - and the only person close to him was Reagan. 

This is true, but I'm not sure that pattern is likely to apply to Trump.  I think that a lot of the improvement that Reagan, Clinton and Obama saw was because voters who backed them initially were nonplussed, but by the time reelection rolls around, the President successfully brought them back into the fold.  Trump already did everything he could to juice up his support in 2018, and it wasn't enough, or even close to enough.  I'm not sure there are a lot of possible Trump voters out there, and the polling backs that up, that Trump's strongly disapprove number is in the high 40s or 50. 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

huh?  Are you talking about 2018 or 2016?  2018 Democrats didn't suffer from turnout being in the wrong place electorally.  Running up the score in places like California, New York and Virginia absolutely helped them pick up as many House seats as they did.  And high turnout helped them win statewide races in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, really everywhere but Florida. 

It helped, but probably not enough given that turnout is going to be higher for Republicans in 2020. Florida is especially bad; having to write that off is pretty brutal, and Florida had two of the better Dem candidates running. 

Pennsylvania is also an interesting and odd one in that much of the Dem pickups there are due to the mandated redistricting. 

But yes, my point was that the highest turnout rates we saw were in places like California and New York, which is helpful for congressional races but not particularly useful for POTUS. 

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 And as for 2016, yes the Electoral College helped Trump, but that's no guarantee it will help him again.  The EC fluctuates from year to year, so it's impossible to say if it will help or hurt him.  If Democrats pick someone who is more popular in the midwest or in Florida than they are in the rest of the country, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the EC is making things harder for Trump. 

The EC may help or harm him, but the states where it'll matter aren't going to change that much. And the biggest benefit he has is that he's an incumbent POTUS in a reasonably good economy that continues to be reasonably good. 

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is true, but I'm not sure that pattern is likely to apply to Trump.  I think that a lot of the improvement that Reagan, Clinton and Obama saw was because voters who backed them initially were nonplussed, but by the time reelection rolls around, the President successfully brought them back into the fold.  Trump already did everything he could to juice up his support in 2018, and it wasn't enough, or even close to enough.  I'm not sure there are a lot of possible Trump voters out there, and the polling backs that up, that Trump's strongly disapprove number is in the high 40s or 50. 

This would be all reasonably more important if Trump were an incumbent Dem. I've yet to see particular defections worth a damn from Republican voters, and I don't think we'll see more. Really, it'll still come down to whether or not Dems can have someone that is popular and beloved run. If they can, they've got a shot. If they don't, or their candidate gets mired in scandal for whatever reason, Trump is going to win. Dems won't vote in enough numbers unless they love their candidate. 

[Maithanet]

So I was thinking about how Trump or America ever gets out of this shutdown nonsense.  And something that I haven't seen written anywhere, but it seems like it might be a solution would just be for Democrats and a few Republicans to pass a budget, Trump vetoes it (No Wall!), and then Congress just overrides the veto.  Yes, that would require some Republican Senators and House members to "go against" Trump, but since it allows Trump to get out of this mess without backing down, they're actually doing him a favor.  It seems like finding the votes in the Senate shouldn't be that hard; all of the Republicans who just won election will never again be on the ballot with Trump, and this is a long way off for 2022 Republicans.  The House might be a little harder, but with Democrats already controlling the chamber it wouldn't get as much attention when some Republicans vote to reopen the Govt.

It has the added benefit for them that Trump doesn't declare a national emergency and effectively neuter the legislative branch. 

The real sticking point is McConnell, since he'd have to go along with this plan and he's up for reelection in 2020.  If he went with this plan and Trump wanted to destroy McConnell in the primary, he could probably do it.  But there's a good chance McConnell already needs Trump in the primary, and this would only make McConnell more subservient to Trump (an obvious win for the WH).