US Politics - All He Wants for Christmas Was His Two Dead Sheep

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Triskele said:

I've been feeling fairly hopeless about impeachment of late, but maybe this (I assume you're referring to Murkowski) is a glimmer.  It seems like at this point getting the trial to include more witnesses and become a big political event is the only hope to move the needle further.  

That said, I'm not even sure that Bolton and Pompeo testifying in the trial that Trump is completely guilty and should be removed from office would make any difference in the polling.  It's starting to feel like a law of physics.  

Why are you feeling hopeless? Did you actually think he’d be removed?

It probably doesn’t matter if anyone testifies, and in fact might it might benefit Democrats if they don’t.

14 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm sure Murkowski's independence results from having survived getting primaried and winning her last election by write-in. Mitt Romney might be the only other Senator with that kind of solid power base independent of the national party.

There are about a half dozen Republicans in the Senate that can’t afford for this to look like a joke, whereas there’s only one Democrat that probably has to vote not to remove Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Raging against an edit made 5 years ago. Triggered indeed.

Your friendly reminder that all the right can do at this point  is project their own flaws onto their opponents.

[Maithanet]

13 hours ago, Jeor said:

Manchin and Jones look like the most vulnerable, and while they might believe his behaviour is reprehensible, they may well come up with some legal technicality as to why he shouldn't be convicted. Manchin doesn't have to be reelected for a while (which could work both ways) but Jones has the Alabama election coming up in a deep red state, and he probably only won the special election in the first place because his opponent was Roy Moore.

I believe in Jones.  He's been pretty solid for the Democrats in spite of being in Alabama.  Manchin I'm more worried about, since he and Trump are friends.

14 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm sure Murkowski's independence results from having survived getting primaried and winning her last election by write-in. Mitt Romney might be the only other Senator with that kind of solid power base independent of the national party.

Murkowski and Romney are the best candidates, although I'm not really pinning my hopes on either one.  After that...I guess you could hope that Collins votes yes and then switches to an independent?  There's no way she gets reelected as a Republican if she votes to convict.  Beyond that, it is the longest of long shots that 4+ republican senators vote to convict. 

[Zorral]

Cut-their-own-throats Dems are not doing again what Hillary didn't do last time -- they are not reaching out to the Hispanic vote. 

Well, I didn't need the WaPo to tell me this, but maybe the stupid Dems will pay attention if the information is brought to them by Bezos?  (I know, I know, he's not supposed to have anCything to do with the WaPo's content.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hispanic-voters-are-growing-in-power-why-are-democratic-presidential-candidates-ignoring-them/2019/12/26/dbf21396-1ff9-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html
.

Quote

 

...Hispanics are increasingly influential in the Democratic Party and in general election contests, but leaders and activists say they feel ignored and misunderstood by candidates who have spent much of their time focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire, predominantly white states at the top of the nominating calendar. They are bluntly calling on party leaders to reconsider the voting order of the states in four years....

Many fear that Democrats are also squandering a uniqueopportunity to boost Hispanic voter turnout in the general election. Shifting demographics and a backlash against President Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies have given Democrats an opening in diversifying battleground states from Arizona to Pennsylvania. But Latino officials fear that a primary contest that often feels far removed from Hispanic communities could blunt excitement for the November election.

“At this stage in the game, we are well beyond talking about missed opportunities,” said Clarissa Martínez de Castro, the deputy vice president for policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, the country’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy group. “This is seriously in the territory of political malpractice....”

 

 

[Maithanet]

The problem is the calendar.  Having one of NH or IA in the first two states is fine, the two together distorts the primary field in an unhealthy way.  NH/MI or IA/PA would both be far preferable.  Or if you want to stick with smaller media markets (I'm somewhat skeptical of the value of that), go with IA/DE or NH/KY.

[Paladin of Ice]

Yeah, in this primary election in particular where there are so many candidates and the early states are going to be make or break for the candidates, I don’t blame them for focusing on the first states on the calendar.

Now I also think the early states aren’t good ones to have setting the agenda for the party and that caucuses should be eliminated in favor of a normal primary vote, but those are issues more for the states than the DNC or the candidates in this particular election, as the states set when they vote in the primaries and how. (And I believe several states, or at least 1, literally have it in their state constitution that they have to be the first or one of the first states in the primary.)

The DNC can and probably should pressure some of the early states about their schedule and I wish that more progressive/diverse states had changed their primary day to earlier in the calendar the way California did, but it’s not the fault of the candidates or the DNC. And convincing states like Iowa or New Hampshire to change is going to be difficult, as the current system gives them outsized power and influence over who becomes president. It’s pretty hard to imagine what to say or do to convince state lawmakers to give that up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

It’s pretty hard to imagine what to say or do to convince state lawmakers to give that up.

They’ll never give it up, and if it’s taken away by force, Dems will never win those states again. You’re better off letting other states move their primaries and caucuses up as earlier as they’d like without upsetting the current starting order. That way candidates can skip Iowa and primarily campaign in more valuable states without risking running out of money. But the latter is the real devil anyways. 

[Jace, Extat]

Black folks go Democrat over Trump 91% of the time. Hispanic folks 66%. Both demographics formed a little over 12% of the U.S. population according to the 2010 census.

White fuckwits went Democrat over Trump 39% of the time. Now unfortunately, those fuckwits form over 60% of the U.S. population and also are overwhelmingly represented in the early states.

So it's basic arithmetic that causes Democrats to ignore the Hispanic vote outside of an occasional line in Espanol. I missed the last debate. Do they even mention the kiddie cages anymore? Did that get a happy ending or just fizzle out?

It's not alright, it's not indicative of a healthy democracy, but the hispanic demographic doesn't do much for a presidential candidate, especially in primary season. Too conservative for Democrats, too hispanic for Republicans.

I mean you'll get your pandering, but everyone gets some pandering.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

They’ll never give it up, and if it’s taken away by force, Dems will never win those states again. You’re better off letting other states move their primaries and caucuses up as earlier as they’d like without upsetting the current starting order. That way candidates can skip Iowa and primarily campaign in more valuable states without risking running out of money. But the latter is the real devil anyways. 

The threat of never winning Iowa again is getting more toothless by the year, considering they comfortably elected a Republican governor in 2018.  It is a peripheral swing state at best, and getting redder all the time.  The thought of kicking them to the curb to have a better presidential selection process is a trade a lot of Democrats would be ready to make.  Particularly when moving the primary to a more important swing state like WI or MI would carry with it benefits as well. 

Or here's a thought, imagine if instead of Iowa, the first caucus was held in Arizona this year?  The Democrats would be spending tens of millions of dollars on infrastructure in a state they could realistically flip in 2020, and they'd be talking about issues Hispanics care about instead of ethanol subsidies. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The threat of never winning Iowa again is getting more toothless by the year, considering they comfortably elected a Republican governor in 2018.  It is a peripheral swing state at best, and getting redder all the time.  The thought of kicking them to the curb to have a better presidential selection process is a trade a lot of Democrats would be ready to make.  Particularly when moving the primary to a more important swing state like WI or MI would carry with it benefits as well. 

Or here's a thought, imagine if instead of Iowa, the first caucus was held in Arizona this year?  The Democrats would be spending tens of millions of dollars on infrastructure in a state they could realistically flip in 2020, and they'd be talking about issues Hispanics care about instead of ethanol subsidies. 

Oh I totally agree, but note I said states, not just Iowa. However, I think you can have your cake and eat it too if AZ could hold its primary a few weeks after IA. That way the issues would get addressed without overturning the applecart.

But note, I also said getting money out of politics is more important than the order states can vote. I disagree with Yang on a lot of issues, but he was absolutely right to highlight who can and can’t afford to donate to campaigns and how that skews them towards white issues.

[Kalbear]

The other problem with the Hispanic vote is the Hispanic population locations. They're either largely in heavily dem states or states that aren't close to tipping to dems, with maybe the exception being Arizona. It doesn't help dems to make their california vote even higher against trump. 

That said, someone should in the primary go after them, because california and Texas are huge wins in delegates. But in the general right now they're not nearly an important factor and are another victim of electoral college bullshit.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The other problem with the Hispanic vote is the Hispanic population locations. They're either largely in heavily dem states or states that aren't close to tipping to dems, with maybe the exception being Arizona. It doesn't help dems to make their california vote even higher against trump.

Sort of.  Without Hispanic voters, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado would all be strongly republican states.  In addition, the Hispanic share of the population is increasingly significant in current and future swing states like Pennsylvania (~8% of population is Hispanic), Georgia and North Carolina (10% each), Florida (26%), Arizona (32%), and Texas (40%). 

Will Hispanic voters prove to be decisive in Democrats flipping Pennsylvania or Arizona or Florida in 2020?  No one knows.  But Democrats aren't going to win any of those states without them. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

The other problem with the Hispanic vote is the Hispanic population locations. They're either largely in heavily dem states or states that aren't close to tipping to dems, with maybe the exception being Arizona. It doesn't help dems to make their california vote even higher against trump. 

That said, someone should in the primary go after them, because california and Texas are huge wins in delegates. But in the general right now they're not nearly an important factor and are another victim of electoral college bullshit.

Texas ... also many other states have significant hispanic populations, such as Pennsylvania.  Hillary did nothing to reach out to them, even though her damned nomCon was in PA.   As of 2016:

Quote

The Hispanic population in Pennsylvania is the 13th largest in the nation. About 834,000 Hispanics reside in Pennsylvania, 1.5% of all Hispanics in the United States. Pennsylvania's population is 7% Hispanic, the 31st largest Hispanic statewide population share nationally ...."

PA's hispanic population has increased another percentage point since 2016.

She didn't win PA, in the actual presidential election, anymore than she won TX.  MI has a significant hispanic population -- many Cubans have settled there, just as it has a significant Islamic population.  So I can't agree with you or Jace

The Dems are just cut-their-own throats because they don't want to admit they are the party of the non-whites.

Bernie's the only one who is paying attention, reaching out and building a base among the communities.  Pete, like the others, except Warren, is a total flop.  Biden probably doesn't know there are any latinos in the US except the Cubans in Miami.

 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Texas ... also many other states have significant hispanic populations, such as Pennsylvania.  Hillary did nothing to reach out to them, even though her damned nomCon was in PA.   As of 2016:

PA's hispanic population has increased another percentage point since 2016.

The 31st largest per capita is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm very aware that Latinx populations live all over the US; the issue is whether or not they'd make a significant difference if you catered to them in the same way you catered to, say, white people, or evangelicals, or non-college educated people. 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

She didn't win PA, in the actual presidential election, anymore than she won TX.  MI has a significant hispanic population -- many Cubans have settled there, just as it has a significant Islamic population.  So I can't agree with you or Jace 

Significant in your view appears to be non-zero. Significant in mine appears to be 'if you shifted the demo or turnout by 10%, would it matter?' And in Pennsylvania, if you shifted the voting population of latinx to another 10% (so from approximately 400k to 440k) the answer is no, it wouldn't have won that election. 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

The Dems are just cut-their-own throats because they don't want to admit they are the party of the non-whites. 

Alternately, and hear me out here, there are a whole lot of white people that also have needs. 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Bernie's the only one who is paying attention, reaching out and building a base among the communities.  Pete, like the others, except Warren, is a total flop.  Biden probably doesn't know there are any latinos in the US except the Cubans in Miami.  

Alternately, and hear me out here, the hispanic population has not done nearly as good a job at political organizing as the AA population has, nor have they been able to side effectively with one group or another. And they've also had a historically worse voting record, both in population and who they vote for. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Triskele said:

No, not removed.  Guess though that I had held out some hope about this whole process hurting his polling at least a bit.  That's where I'm despairing.  

What this whole affair proves is that (i) 40-45% of the active voting public will always support a Republican no matter what until demographic changes take their toll and (ii) elected Republicans really are terrified of their base, otherwise they wouldn’t self-own so easily and often in public.

[Kalbear]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What this whole affair proves is that (i) 40-45% of the active voting public will always support a Republican no matter what until demographic changes take their toll and (ii) elected Republicans really are terrified of their base, otherwise they wouldn’t self-own so easily and often in public.

Well, sorta. If the economy is strong, it means that about 40% of the population (either way) are going to support their person no matter what. Republicans and Democrats both. It's not like Clinton lost significant support from dems during his impeachment. 

I think it's also quite clear that Trump is a very Republican POTUS and is doing an excellent job giving his voters what they wanted. In particular evangelicals - while people decry their hypocritical viewpoint, from a pragmatic standpoint Trump is by far the most effective evangelical POTUS that has ever come through. He has literally nominated 1/4th of the appelate court, and they are all extremely pro-life conservative justices who will be serving for 40 years or more. He has two pro-life super-conservative justices on SCOTUS. To them, this is akin to getting the ACA and more. 

Much like Dems were willing to forgive Clinton for marital issues, I suspect that a lot of Republican voters seeing those successes are happy to ignore them, especially since they didn't end up with any actual problems yet and they're getting more of what they want (more Trump). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

nor have they been able to side effectively with one group or another. 

It's worth pointing out that Latinos are one of the least monolithic groups, and this applies to both culture and geography. For example, Cubans living in South Florida behave very differently from Dominicans living in the same area. My understanding though as an outsider that this is starting to change by age groups.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, sorta. If the economy is strong, it means that about 40% of the population (either way) are going to support their person no matter what. Republicans and Democrats both. It's not like Clinton lost significant support from dems during his impeachment. 

I think it's also quite clear that Trump is a very Republican POTUS and is doing an excellent job giving his voters what they wanted. In particular evangelicals - while people decry their hypocritical viewpoint, from a pragmatic standpoint Trump is by far the most effective evangelical POTUS that has ever come through. He has literally nominated 1/4th of the appelate court, and they are all extremely pro-life conservative justices who will be serving for 40 years or more. He has two pro-life super-conservative justices on SCOTUS. To them, this is akin to getting the ACA and more. 

Much like Dems were willing to forgive Clinton for marital issues, I suspect that a lot of Republican voters seeing those successes are happy to ignore them, especially since they didn't end up with any actual problems yet and they're getting more of what they want (more Trump). 

I don't disagree with any of this really, I just think we're looking at it in different ways. Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect partisanship is a greater driver than actual support for Trump, and if that hypothesis is correct, the economy actually doesn't matter that much to Republican voters when deciding who to vote for. The economy is more about how independents will break. 

You're also right that Trump is very Republican, at least in the modern context, and yes, evangelical support is a big reason why, but I honestly think the strongest driver is his hard line stance on immigration. I think that's what they really love, otherwise how could a self-proclaimed evangelical be at peace with ripping families apart and locking kids in cages? Side note, still happening, but ti's like so many just forgot...

[DanteGabriel]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't disagree with any of this really, I just think we're looking at it in different ways. Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect partisanship is a greater driver than actual support for Trump, and if that hypothesis is correct, the economy actually doesn't matter that much to Republican voters when deciding who to vote for. The economy is more about how independents will break. 

You're also right that Trump is very Republican, at least in the modern context, and yes, evangelical support is a big reason why, but I honestly think the strongest driver is his hard line stance on immigration. I think that's what they really love, otherwise how could a self-proclaimed evangelical be at peace with ripping families apart and locking kids in cages? Side note, still happening, but ti's like so many just forgot...

Surprise surprise, Trump's immigration policies are very pleasing to the hypocritical racist shitsuckers who claim to be the most Jesusy of all.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020

It's almost like the foundation of white Evangelical Christianity is being able to call yourself "Christian" and be smugly satisfied about your own righteousness while hating and fearing everyone who looks different from you.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's almost like the foundation of white Evangelical Christianity is being able to call yourself "Christian" and be smugly satisfied about your own righteousness while hating and fearing everyone who looks different from you.

As an outsider it's always confused me how a religion based on compassion and empathy has so many followers who have no compassion or empathy for anyone outside of their social circles. 

I always use the example of Senator Portman. He was staunchly anti-gay rights for his entire career until his son came out because he could finally empathize with what it meant to be gay.