U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

[Maithanet]

I read the transcript of Trump's speech, and it is...not very Trumpy.  It contains a few huge lies, but less than usual for him.  It contains some platitudes about caring about the wellbeing of migrants which is just very strange to hear from Trump.  Most of all, it was scripted, lifeless, boring.  Trump doesn't have any cards to play, so he goes on national tv and gives his best imitation of what previous presidents would do.  But Trump sucks at that kind of speech, if he'd done that in the primary, he would have been relegated to the kids table debates. 

I often struggle with trying to figure out why Trump does anything.  But this seems like one of two things:

1.  He's trying to appear "reasonable" and "presidential" before his power grab later this week when he declares an emergency.  This makes a certain amount of sense, but still seems like a really weak play. 

2.  This is Trump genuinely trying to reach out to new voters.  I mean, it's not rocket science that his current support of 41% will not be enough to win reelection.  So at some point you would expect him to at least try and appeal to the middle on SOME issue.  And immigration is the horse that brought him here, so it makes a certain amount of sense to try it again. 

If it's #1, this speech was irrelevant, since it didn't change anyone's mind, but with the president's emergency powers, it doesn't matter what other people think.  If it's #2 it was a failure, because Trump has burned too many bridges on immigration.  The more fruitful avenue I see for real outreach into skeptical Trump voters and 2016 3rd party voters (both of which Trump needs in 2020) would be to play up Trump the Builder, get an infrastructure bill passed, run up the deficit and talk about the economy nonstop. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

All things considered, that went very poorly for Trump and fairly well for Democrats.

1. Trump did not declare a national emergency. Thank god.

2. His speech was fairly weak. It’s not going to appeal to anyone that’s not already on board while at the same time might have actually bothered some of his racist supporters.

3. Trump looked and sounded terrible. I work in an office where next to nobody follows politics, and they’re all mocking his appearance.

4. In contrast, Pelosi and Schumer looked and sounded like reasonable people, and they did a pretty good job with their rebuttals, which is not easy to do.

 

All in all, Trump wasted an address from the Oval Office and will get nothing for his efforts. Fox was even ripping him afterwards.

[mormont]

35 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I often struggle with trying to figure out why Trump does anything.  But this seems like one of two things:

I think it's a third, which is 'someone who had his ear briefly persuaded him that this was worth a try'. Since it seems to have had no real impact, I'm sure he'll now blame bad advice and do something more in his wheelhouse. 

[Martell Spy]

40 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think it's a third, which is 'someone who had his ear briefly persuaded him that this was worth a try'. Since it seems to have had no real impact, I'm sure he'll now blame bad advice and do something more in his wheelhouse. 

This. Remember when the media praised him for giving one of these boring Trump speeches near the start of his team?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think it's a third, which is 'someone who had his ear briefly persuaded him that this was worth a try'. Since it seems to have had no real impact, I'm sure he'll now blame bad advice and do something more in his wheelhouse. 

This leaked around the time of the speech (can’t recall if it was before or after):  

Quote

President Donald Trump did not want to give his prime-time Oval Office address and said privately that his planned Thursday trip to the southern border was a waste of time, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-speech-border-government-shutdown-new-york-times-maggie-haberman-1284544

[Fez]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Interesting - it's certainly possible the administration could find some DoD funding that Trump could have discretionary authority over without declaring an emergency - you got a link for that?  Could be that's why he publicly "hasn't decided" on declaring an emergency while his staff is busy trying to find money (I know, that would assume competence).

I can't find it now, it was some journalist I follow on Twitter who mentioned the possibility. Also, if it was the Barry Goldwater air force range in Arizona that was being talked about, building a wall for that specific section there could almost be considered the humanitarian option. It's not known exactly how many people have died crossing that range, but its suspected to be quite high. The military hasn't allowed a thorough search though, partially due to the danger that searchers would be exposed to.

 

The House is voting today on piecemeal legislation to open specific Federal agencies one-by-one, it'll be interesting to see how many Republicans break ranks and vote for them. I think there's the chance it'll be quite high, which would increase the pressure on McConnell to allow a vote in the Senate as well. Quite a few Republican senators have been making noise the past couple days, probably not enough yet to force McConnell's hand; but if 40-50 House Republicans break ranks, that could cause a lot of momentum for these "bipartisan bills".

[Relic]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I think it's a third, which is 'someone who had his ear briefly persuaded him that this was worth a try'. Since it seems to have had no real impact, I'm sure he'll now blame bad advice and do something more in his wheelhouse. 

Sadly, this is the most likely scenario

[Mexal]

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Apparently Rosenstein intends to step down as soon as Barr is sworn in. The implications are fairly clear.

What implications?

[IheartIheartTesla]

If the House approves a bill, is the Senate not obligated to consider it for a vote? How can McConnell allow or not allow a vote?

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If the House approves a bill, is the Senate not obligated to consider it for a vote? How can McConnell allow or not allow a vote?

He's the majority leader, he decides what gets put on the senate floor. There's no obligation that the senate vote on most things; only a handful of things, like whether to disapprove of a declaration of a national emergency, are required to get votes.

Technically, 51 senators can overrrule the majority leader, but that would require members of the majority party to vote for a procedural motion introduced by the minority party and that sort of thing almost never happens. Usually, a majority leader will eventually buckle to pressure from within their party and allow the bill a vote long before any of them would even think of voting for a minority resolution.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, I guess I don't like that. Why even let the House propose and pass bills if they could be held up at any time by the Senate? It just seems so inefficient to me.

[Corvinus85]

Trump has just ordered FEMA to stop sending funds to California for fire recovery.

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, I guess I don't like that. Why even let the House propose and pass bills if they could be held up at any time by the Senate? It just seems so inefficient to me.

It goes both ways at least, the House can also refuse to consider bills that the Senate passed (as famously happened in 2013 when the House refused to vote for the immigration reform bill that got 68 votes in the senate).

Our system of government was designed from the very beginning to contain as many veto points as possible, to prevent hasty polices from being implemented. Hence, the two chambers of Congress are completely independent and have almost no obligations to each other; yet both must pass an identical bill before it goes to the President.

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Trump has just ordered FEMA to stop sending funds to California for fire recovery.

Yea which is idiotic given the fires are happening on Federal lands. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I often struggle with trying to figure out why Trump does anything.  But this seems like one of two things:

1.  He's trying to appear "reasonable" and "presidential" before his power grab later this week when he declares an emergency.  This makes a certain amount of sense, but still seems like a really weak play. 

2.  This is Trump genuinely trying to reach out to new voters.  I mean, it's not rocket science that his current support of 41% will not be enough to win reelection.  So at some point you would expect him to at least try and appeal to the middle on SOME issue.  And immigration is the horse that brought him here, so it makes a certain amount of sense to try it again. 

 

On #2, he tried this already with his massive push against immigration in the 2018 midterms. Remember the caravan? The military presence (which is STILL there)? The ad so racist that even Fox pulled it? He tried that, and he'll keep doing it, because Trump doesn't care shit about swaying voters - it's about appeasing his fans. And his fans are Fox News, Republican primary voters and the like. As long as he keeps them happy, he keeps senators and congressmen happyish (because they are still mostly threatened by primary threats, even moreso now that most moderates are gone), and he will likely not be impeached.

As to why he's doing this, I think it's because as @Tywin et al. said - people close to him wanted him to do this the 'right' way and try to make his case to the public. They think he can convince people. It sounds to me like a Kushner kind of BS move, but that's what it is. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

What implications?

That Mueller will be fired.

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That Mueller will be fired.

Nah. Barr isn't going to fire Mueller. They know each other pretty well and Barr will know that he's coming into a role with a ton of political heat. I bet he'll show an overabundance of caution when dealing with the investigation. In addition, Rosenstein is leaving on his own and I doubt he does that without knowing Mueller is far enough along that it can't be stopped or close to completion.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Nah. Barr isn't going to fire Mueller. They know each other pretty well and Barr will know that he's coming into a role with a ton of political heat. I bet he'll show an overabundance of caution when dealing with the investigation. In addition, Rosenstein is leaving on his own and I doubt he does that without knowing Mueller is far enough along that it can't be stopped or close to completion.

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. 

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

On #2, he tried this already with his massive push against immigration in the 2018 midterms. Remember the caravan? The military presence (which is STILL there)? The ad so racist that even Fox pulled it? He tried that, and he'll keep doing it, because Trump doesn't care shit about swaying voters - it's about appeasing his fans. And his fans are Fox News, Republican primary voters and the like. As long as he keeps them happy, he keeps senators and congressmen happyish (because they are still mostly threatened by primary threats, even moreso now that most moderates are gone), and he will likely not be impeached.

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).  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 get above 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. 

[Fez]

Yeah, I wonder if Trump knew this when he nominated Barr...

Also, Barr wouldn't be recused from the investigation the way Sessions was; so Rosenstein would have no authority over Mueller anymore anyway. And it makes sense Rosenstein would want to leave, even without all the investigation stuff. It's the kind of high level, high pressure position that most people wouldn't want to be in for more than a couple years. Obama had three different senate-confirmed DAGs over his time in office, Bush had four, Clinton had three, etc. Burnout is a real thing.