Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

Recommended Posts

Nunes aide communicated with Parnas about Ukraine campaign, messages show

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/nunes-aide-communicated-with-parnas-about-ukraine-campaign-messages-show/2020/01/17/398ea1f6-3984-11ea-a01d-b7cc8ec1a85d_story.html

Quote

 

House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trump’s personal attorney and an aide to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee regarding the effort to obtain material from Ukrainian prosecutors that would be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.

The text messages between Lev Parnas, who functioned as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunes’s office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president — and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering.

The newly released texts show that Parnas was working last spring to set up calls for Harvey with the Ukrainian prosecutors who were feeding Giuliani information about Biden.

 

 

Share this post


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

I wonder how polls have tracked over time. The article mentions a ten point drop, but from when? I am curious if her approval dropped after the Kavanaugh vote, then rebounded, and dropped again recently?

You can find Collins' Morning Consult approval over time here using the "Senator Lookup" feature.  Morning Consult isn't the only pollster to find her increasingly unpopular lately, here's PPP in October 2019:

Quote

Collins is unpopular, with only 35% of voters approving of the job she's doing to 50% who disapprove. She trails a generic Democrat for reelection 44-41. That represents a big drop for Collins compared to a poll we did last September when she led a generic Democrat by 6 points at 44-38. At that time she only trailed 64-21 among Clinton voters but in the wake of her vote on Brett Kavanaugh and the general hardening of partisan lines she's lost a lot of her crossover support and now trails 76-12 with Clinton voters.

53% of Mainers support impeaching Donald Trump with 44% opposed. When we ask voters who they would choose if Collins opposed impeachment, her 76-12 deficit among Clinton voters grows even further to 83-8 and she goes from a 3 point deficit against a generic Democratic opponent for reelection to a 7 point deficit at 47-40.

“It’s going to be hard for Susan Collins to get reelected if she opposes impeachment,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “She’s already lost a lot of her crossover support from Democrats, and that would cause her to lose even more.”

Collins faces defeat from a different angle if she supports impeachment though. Her numbers are already a little bit soft with Republican primary voters with 53% saying they generally support her for the nomination again to 38% who say they would prefer someone else. We also tested Collins against some specific possible opponents in a primary- she trails Paul LePage 63-29 and Shawn Moody 45-36 but does lead Derek Levasseur who already entered and exited the race this year 55-10.

 

Share this post


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

You can find Collins' Morning Consult approval over time here using the "Senator Lookup" feature.  Morning Consult isn't the only pollster to find her increasingly unpopular lately, here's PPP in October 2019:

 

And this unpopularity has practical effects: Collins would not be publicly stating she wanted witnesses if she could get away without it.  By contrast Thom Tillis/Joni Ernst both of whom are unpopular in their states dare not defy their Trump base.  Same for Ben Sasse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, DMC. I remember Morning Consult have a big site, and figured that I could go through it and see, but that made it much easier. It looks like the original article talking about a 10% drop means 10 points in the approval rating from the 1st quarter of 2019, at which point Collins was pulling a 52% approval rating, as opposed to 42% now. To show how big the fall from grace has been, compare it to the start of the Trump presidency: 62% favorable, 27% unfavorable. Even up to the start of 2019 she was holding on okay, as 52% favorable, 39% unfavorable are very healthy numbers. But she tanked hard in 2019.

I do have to dispute how the company defines unpopularity though, as they seem to be going solely by the disapproval rate while ignoring approval and the difference between them entirely. For example, McConnell is considered not as unpopular even though his net comes out worse: Collins is 42% approve, 52% disapprove, (net of -10%) McConnell is 37% approve, 50% disapprove (net of -13%). That's not a well thought out system, and all you have to do is look at the other "most unpopular" Senators to see that: the list includes Murkowski, who approval and disapproval are dead even, and Warren, who has 50% approval, 40% disapproval. (+10) But she's "less popular" than Rand Paul, who has 41% approval to 39%. (+2, almost certainly within the margin of error.)

(By the way, the margin of error is 2% for Collins polling, so according to this poll her best case scenario is 44% approve, 50% disapprove, worst case is 40% approve, 54% disapprove.)

There's an enormous difference between, say, the 37% disapproval rating of Thom Tillis, who only has a 34% approval rating, versus the 37% disapproval rating of Jeanne Shaheen, who has a 52% approval rating. Saying that they're equally "unpopular" is obviously asinine, or at least it should be.

I just hope their polls are better thought out than this or certain interfaces on their site. For what's it's worth, they get a B/C provisional rating from 538, who notes that Morning Consult calls about 75% of races correctly, and they have almost no tendency to overestimate the chances of one party or the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I do have to dispute how the company defines unpopularity though, as they seem to be going solely by the disapproval rate while ignoring approval and the difference between them entirely.

I agree that the net should be emphasized over the basic disapproval rating.  I don't think it's a big deal though - obviously you can look up both numbers yourself and I'm definitely not gonna complain about Morning Consult for the very reason they tend to provide more (and specifically more long-term) data in an easily accessible manner compared to almost any other major firm.  I do agree with SIlver's ratings though that they're a rather middling main firm in terms of both accuracy and methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new york times endorses warren and klobuchar for president. shocked as i am to say it, i think this is a brilliant choice. by splitting duties, the madame co-presidents are at little risk of burning out in this grueling and high presssure job... and as a bonus for you deficit hawks, by only working half-time, neither would be eligible overtime or benefits, saving tax payers millions (presumably factoring in their respective staffs). a sophisticated and elegant idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

incredible

Quote

Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html

 

edit: this entire piece is breathtaking, holy cow

Edited by george jar jar martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, george jar jar martin said:

I like this scrumptious little nugget of persuasion:

Quote

And it’s far too early to count Ms. Klobuchar out — Senator John Kerry, the eventual Democrat nominee in 2004, was also polling in the single digits at this point in the race

And then there's this ..

Quote

any other time in the past decade, with a nuclear arms race looking more when than if. Basket-case governments in several nations south of the Rio Grande have sent a historic flood of migrants to our southern border. Global technology companies exert more political influence than some national governments. White nationalists from Norway to New Zealand to El Paso use the internet to share ideas about racial superiority and which caliber of rifle works best for the next mass killing.

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it.

I've started using the fact my 3 y/o niece is black as a weapon against family members to vote Democrat in 2020.

All I have to do is show the voting numbers from 2016. 88% of African Americans voted Democratic (94% of black women)

Actually, how do Republicans on this board explain this statistic to themselves?

I know people down here in the racist South like to say "cause blacks are lazy socialists, and that's why they vote democrat."

Make no mistake, we live in a two party system. And if you vote Republican you are voting to give my niece a shittier life.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The editorial gives a boost to a candidate (although nothing like they used to). By splitting the endorsement they've undermined the endorsement. The editorial page should have had the courage of its convictions and argued for Warren over Klobuchar, or for Klobuchar over Warren while making clear the other was more qualified.  Their justification for not doing so is so flimsy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Statistically, I think this says more about the number of things you have heard, than about that article.

I mean, there are still people on the planet that say “I believe the Earth is flat”. You haven’t heard these people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Statistically, I think this says more about the number of things you have heard, than about that article.

Fair enough, I'll rephrase.  It's the dumbest thing I've heard recently from the NYTimes. 

Look Warren and Klobuchar have very different political philosophies and the one major thing in common as against the other candidates is they are the women in the race. Not only is the NYTimes implicitly elevating gender and identity politics over political ideology or even electability, but it's giving little practical guidance to the Iowa caucus voter and the New Hampshire voter.  Endorsing Klobuchar would be a bold move and defensible. So would a whole-hearted endorsement of Warren (and for what it's worth, I currently intend to vote for Warren in the DC primary).  Saying "the debate is good" is both wrong and self-defeating.  To govern is to choose.  To fail to choose is to fail to govern.  

The debate this country really needs is not about the specifics of policies the Democrats would enact or their theory of the case in dealing with a Mitch McConnell senate.  The debate we need is between truth v lies, conviction v opportunism, and corruption v integrity.  One major party has abdicated any claim to these values and must be destroyed.  In the unusual situation where there are four frontrunners for the Dem nomination, the NYT had an opportunity to give one candidate a major shot in the arm.  By splitting their endorsement they wasted it and made the meta-commentary about their judgment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real voter fraud!  Holy cow! Maybe you all have but I had not met Stacy the disaffected Dem voter.

This sadly dissappointed in the local Democratic congressional member commercial is running in many states, and in some of them in more than one district in that state. The commercial is exactly the same in each district, with "Stacy" the disappointed Dem voter claiming to being resident there. The only difference is the name of the Dem congressional member the commercial claims is doing nothing about border control and the opioid crisis. 

Don't know how it would play on your device, but there are ads for Bernie that run before this segment plays.


 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The real voter fraud!  Holy cow! Maybe you all have but I had not met Stacy the disaffected Dem voter.

This sadly dissappointed in the local Democratic congressional member commercial is running in many states, and in some of them in more than one district in that state. The commercial is exactly the same in each district, with "Stacy" the disappointed Dem voter claiming to being resident there. The only difference is the name of the Dem congressional member the commercial claims is doing nothing about border control and the opioid crisis. 

Don't know how it would play on your device, but there are ads for Bernie that run before this segment plays.


 

I know from all the things wrong there, this is probably the least of the problems with this spot, HOWEVER, I find it amusing how they describe Stacy there.

Mom, Wife, Teacher. In that order. Spot the conservative there.

I can almost picture the thought process in the meeting that went into creating her.

We start with her biological function as a mother. then we go on to her role a manpleaser, eh sorry, wife. Shouldn't she also have likesay a career. Sure let her be a teacher or something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

 

With Clinton there was so much other stuff that it was probabaly lost in the trees.  With Klobuchar she's unfamiliar to most voters compared to Sanders or Biden or Warren, and the two reports about that both had memorable details - the stapler and the spoon* - and they were covered by major newspapers.  I do think misogyny plays a part in how much flak she's gotten for it, but at the same time it's not like that justifies the behavior.  In a vacuum, it's not weird or funny that being an abusive boss would be something people are concerned about .

Edited by larrytheimp
*comb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

With Clinton there was so much other stuff that it was probabaly lost in the trees.  With Klobuchar she's unfamiliar to most voters compared to Sanders or Biden or Warren, and the two reports about that both had memorable details - the stapler and the spoon - and they were covered by major newspapers.  I do think misogyny plays a part in how much flak she's gotten for it, but at the same time it's not like that justifies the behavior.  In a vacuum, it's not weird or funny that being an abusive boss would be something people are concerned about .

I also think this seems more relevant to people after having Trump in office for three years, because it makes Klobuchar seem seem like she shares a personality characteristic with Trump. There has been a lot of reporting the last three years about how Trump treats his staff, and even though Klobuchar's problems in that regard (even if true) aren't as bad as Trump's. I think it makes Democratic primary voters more wary of her, as having someone who is NOT like Trump would be one of their main goals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few thoughts on the Gray Lady's dual-endorsements.  First, it's obviously completely feckless to endorse two candidates on its face.  But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the NYT over the past twenty years.  In my adult life the "paper of record" has:  lent credibility in its reporting to the Bush administration's build-up to the Iraq War; championed "considered moderates" such as Tom Friedman and David Brooks that's ethos is so focused on trying to straddle the political divide it makes all "moderates" or pragmatists look indecisive and weak; bowed to the "pressure" of hiring bigoted pseudo-intellectuals to their Op-Ed page in the absurdly ironic interest of "highlighting diverse perspectives."  So, yeah, not exactly shocked that their editorial board did something feckless and indecisive, that's par for the course.

Second, endorsements don't matter anymore.  Especially newspaper endorsements - they were quite influential when most of the electorate actually read a newspaper, but for the same reason, they are almost completely irrelevant now.  Generally, endorsements don't matter other than as an indicator for which primary candidate(s) is receiving institutional support.  Only endorsement that would matter in this Democratic primary is Barack Obama's, and/or Michelle's.  I'd say the Clintons, but that's just as likely (if not more so) to backfire.

Third, I can see a positive aspect to this - in that it counters the electability perception that both Biden and Sanders have the best chance of winning in their respective wings of the party.  That's an assertion I wholeheartedly agree with.  And, really, if a voter told me that's why she supports both Klobuchar and Warren but will just figure out who has the best chance between the two on election day, I'd say that's wholly reasonable (and even impressively strategic) decision-making.  So, if that was their main thesis in making the endorsements, I think it's actually a pretty cool idea.  Especially considering the NYT editorial board does still retain influence among elite opinion-makers.  But, even though I haven't read their reasoning, I'm guessing this aspect was not emphasized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

The article actually mentions the other Clinton (and Biden and Trump as well) as berating his staff. I've never heard of HRC in this context ever, actually.

Speaking of the editorial,

Quote

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.

Thank you for clarifying absolutely nothing

Share this post


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

×