Jump to content

US Politics: Ruthless ambition


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

On the polling note, Biden has been receiving some modest poll numbers (both the USC/Dornsife and a new IBD/TIPP have him in the vicinity of ~6 rather than higher) bringing his average to ~6.8. I do note that the USC numbers are going back up, so I think he may recover a little bit of that in a while. I imagine this ending up being a +6 race around election time.

From an analytical view, I'm surprised that Trump and co aren't considering holding off on nominating the replacement judge until after the election, purely to use it to garner voter excitement.  Even if they lost the Nov election, they'd still have time to slam one through before the turnover.  But pushing one through now while RBG isn't even in the ground will just energize the other side.   Possibly to the point that stacking the court on a victory is considered a reasonable choice. 

The other option of course is the plan to just win via the court in the case of a close election.  But that is going to stoke the fires of civil war further, which seems like a bad choice from a long term view when you're the minority party population and economy wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard to say who will be energized more; based on 2018 we can say that the Kavanaugh confirmation did mobilize the Dems, but I'm not sure as to exactly how much. I happen to think these kinds of events (like a confirmation hearing) tend to motivate rank and file members of the party more so than the average Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oooh - the DoJ is inventing new terms (I think) and have declared New York, Seattle and Portland “anarchist cities” where law and order is not being enforced and they are going to cut off federal funding to those cities.

This all sounds like some kind of unconstitutional bullshit to me, but boy oh boy, the Republicans are bound and determined to alienate huge swaths of the public, aren’t they?

I know during the pandemic those areas are hurting financially, but, don't those states the cities are in pay into the federal government more than they get back anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Its hard to say who will be energized more; based on 2018 we can say that the Kavanaugh confirmation did mobilize the Dems, but I'm not sure as to exactly how much. I happen to think these kinds of events (like a confirmation hearing) tend to motivate rank and file members of the party more so than the average Joe.

My impression of 2018 is that the Kavanaugh hearings actually motivated Republicans.  The generic ballot advantage the Democrats went down and never completely recovered after that.  Until the hearings, it seemed like Democrats were mobilized and Republicans were not, whereas afterwards both sides were mobilized.  It didn't matter for control of the House because there are more Democrats (and Dem leaning independents).  But without that, I do wonder if the closest losses like FL Sen, FL Gov and GA Gov, might have gone Democrats way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One interesting thing is it seems immigration has completely fallen off the radar as an issue of importance to U.S. voters. Not only was that an important issue for Trump, but it was a key component of the rising right wing populism/facscism in the West. And due to the virus no one is going to give a damn about immigration for at least another year in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My impression of 2018 is that the Kavanaugh hearings actually motivated Republicans. 

Yeah, you might be right about that, although I think its effect on the overall result may not have been that large. I hate to make any predictions about 2020 though. If Trump/McConnell cant get the wavering Republicans on board, that would be the best outcome, since it shows Trump to be an ineffectual leader who cant even make deals with his own party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, you might be right about that, although I think its effect on the overall result may not have been that large. I hate to make any predictions about 2020 though. If Trump/McConnell cant get the wavering Republicans on board, that would be the best outcome, since it shows Trump to be an ineffectual leader who cant even make deals with his own party.

I agree that its impact was probably not huge either way.  In all likelihood, Republicans would have gotten motivated for 2018 in the final month anyway, they were just in a bit less hurry than Democrats, who were counting the days to 2018 for two years. 

I also expect that the electoral impact of RBG's death (in terms of votes cast) will be minimal.  My big concern is the Supreme Court deciding on the inevitable post-election lawsuits.  I think that could potentially be a huge impact, and it's why I fully expect Trump/McConnell to get the new justice seated prior to the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I know during the pandemic those areas are hurting financially, but, don't those states the cities are in pay into the federal government more than they get back anyways?

There are exceptions, but blue states tend to fun red states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I know during the pandemic those areas are hurting financially, but, don't those states the cities are in pay into the federal government more than they get back anyways?

They pay massively more into both state and federal coffers.  Cities are the economic engines of our country.  Rural areas are almost universally net drains on state and federal coffers, and that's before you start looking at the silly amount of subsidies they get for the products they produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are exceptions, but blue states tend to fun red states.

I knew for sure that New York did, I was just unsure if that was true for Washington and Oregon.  (I am like 80% sure that is true for Washington, no clue on Oregon).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

He claimed he'd only leave, if and when the brown shirt came for him. Which, as had been pointed out, would be a bit too late, but also. We're talking America, those guys won't be wearing brown shirts, not even brown polo shirts. The correct wording would've been, when the red hats come for him.

First, the fact it would be too late was kind of the point.  Second, you've clearly already put way more thought into that statement than I did.  I mean, who wears brown polo shirts?

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I can't believe that somehow *I've* turned into the optimist, but I think McConnell has been jammed up by this even harder than Democrats. Yes, he said there will be a vote, but he also told his caucus to "keep their powder dry". I'm not even sure if he knows yet exactly what he's going to do, because he's not even assured of the votes yet.

The fact that Tillis and Perdue have already come out in support tells me they're desperate. Fundraising for Dems is through the roof; it'll be interesting to see if Republican fundraising totals keep pace. 

This election isn't over, and Democrats goddamn well better start figuring out how to wield power without always fucking apologizing for it.

You seem quite amped up about all this "doom and gloom" concerning who's going to win the election.  I'm just wondering who you're referring to?  I don't think anyone on this board is suggesting the Dems are now gonna lose because of Ginsburg's death - or even that it decreases their chances in terms of the actual vote.  The obvious concern when it comes to the election is the swing vote on any court challenges changing from Roberts to Gorsuch, which in my and many's opinion significantly raises the chances the court may allow Trump to steal the election.  The other depressing thing is this now makes it 6-3, meaning that if the Dems can't achieve unified government, the policy implications of such a shift are rather extensive and appalling.

As for McConnell being "jammed up," I really don't see it.  He is overwhelmingly likely to get the votes and he damn well knows it.  Agree with you on the fundraising though - this should yield a net gain for Dems in that regard.

32 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I happen to think these kinds of events (like a confirmation hearing) tend to motivate rank and file members of the party more so than the average Joe.

Yup.  As I've said repeatedly, the notion that the court drives voter turnout or persuasion in any significant manner is incredibly dubious.  People (not people on here, I mean pundits and journalists and such) constantly harp on how many GOP voters cited the SC as one of the most important issues in 2016 and how that drove the election for Trump.  Um, how bout you guys recognize the basics of causality?  Just because an issue is salient with a lot of voters does not mean that issue changed the voters' minds or even caused them to turnout.  And when it comes to the SC, it is undoubtedly activists - like, say, the Federalist Society which basically runs the GOP nomination process for the entire federal judiciary - and, as you said, strong partisans that are most influenced by open seats.  Those people are going to vote no matter what, and vote a certain way no matter what.  

45 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I know during the pandemic those areas are hurting financially, but, don't those states the cities are in pay into the federal government more than they get back anyways?

Nah, state governments don't pay into the federal government, it's totally the other way around.  As for which states are most dependent on the federal government, here's a good quick and easy list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

 Nah, state governments don't pay into the federal government, it's totally the other way around.  As for which states are most dependent on the federal government, here's a good quick and easy list.

Thanks, I will read that when I'm not so busy.  I guess the statistic I wave basically recalling was the ratio of how much each state gets back for every federal dollar that they put in.  I know, for New York, it is a net loss, for instance.  (This may address it, I haven't been able to really read it, so I apologize if that is the case, nor I guess, should I just be asking other people to google for me either.  :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

First, the fact it would be too late was kind of the point.  Second, you've clearly already put way more thought into that statement than I did.  I mean, who wears brown polo shirts?

You seem quite amped up about all this "doom and gloom" concerning who's going to win the election.  I'm just wondering who you're referring to?  I don't think anyone on this board is suggesting the Dems are now gonna lose because of Ginsburg's death - or even that it decreases their chances in terms of the actual vote.  The obvious concern when it comes to the election is the swing vote on any court challenges changing from Roberts to Gorsuch, which in my and many's opinion significantly raises the chances the court may allow Trump to steal the election.  The other depressing thing is this now makes it 6-3, meaning that if the Dems can't achieve unified government, the policy implications of such a shift are rather extensive and appalling.

As for McConnell being "jammed up," I really don't see it.  He is overwhelmingly likely to get the votes and he damn well knows it.  Agree with you on the fundraising though - this should yield a net gain for Dems in that regard.

Maybe I just have tunnel vision, but the "moving to Canada/OMG we're all fucked" posts seem to have exploded since Ginsberg's death, not just here, but on every blog/website I go to. If my experience isn't normative, then oh well - are you going to complain that a fuck-off lefty like me is mobilizing like crazy for Dems?

I think he's jammed because if he wasn't, he wouldn't have announced right away. He would have done his stupid Moscow-Mitch doublespeak about respecting the death of Ginsberg and how dare Democrats politicize her death, blah, blah, blah, just like he does with stimulus. He knows he's going to get pushback from some in his caucus, so he could have counted his votes beforehand instead of forcing his most vulnerable Senators to make such fraught choice. Maybe he's not jammed up, maybe it's just a huge miscalculation on his part, but him being so hasty says, to me, that McConnell was getting pressured to make a fast decision, and he just doesn't like doing that. It puts his Senators in a position to let Democrats play pinata with them for the next 6 weeks over the SC pick, and the economy/stimulus/pandemic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, the fact it would be too late was kind of the point.  Second, you've clearly already put way more thought into that statement than I did.  I mean, who wears brown polo shirts?

Well, the idea with the polo shirt started basically with Twitler as leader of the movement (well the image of him playing golf), and then it somehow went a bit out of control from there. With the idea, of that fat thug and his supporters coming after you in their golf carts with squeeling tires in the middle of the night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I guess the statistic I wave basically recalling was the ratio of how much each state gets back for every federal dollar that they put in.  I know, for New York, it is a net loss, for instance.  (This may address it, I haven't been able to really read it, so I apologize if that is the case, nor I guess, should I just be asking other people to google for me either.  :P)

Ah, gotcha.  Yeah, that stat would be based on how much the citizens of each state put into the federal government - which obviously everyone does - compared to the assistance received per capita.  The link I cited does not address the first part of that*, but I'm sure you google it pretty quickly.

*ETA:  To clarify, their metrics do use IRS collections as the the denominator in three aspects that compose their "state residents dependency" rank, but the measures do not include/calculate/address any net measure like you're saying.

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

the "moving to Canada/OMG we're all fucked" posts seem to have exploded since Ginsberg's death

Fair point.

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think he's jammed because if he wasn't, he wouldn't have announced right away.

Disagree.  He announced right away first because he's just reiterating what he's publicly stated multiple times the past couple years.  And second because he and Trump are preparing an expedited confirmation process so he wants to get that going ASAP.

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

With the idea, of that fat thug and his supporters coming after you in their golf carts with squeeling tires in the middle of the night.

So, basically like the Villages:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

So, basically like the Villages:

 

Yeah, something like that. Somehow I gather you are not nearly as scared of them as you are supposed to. I mean, as soon as they find somebody to install a stair lift at your appartment complex you are probably doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the Ginsburg thing was not exactly the last straw, but the last bastion of 'will there be a check on authoritarianism' in the US. With a 6-3 basis in the court there is basically nothing that will stop that slide save court packing. I also believe specifically that this will ensure Trump will win the election. 

The good news is that if Biden actually wins I'll have to be here because no country is allowing us to actually move right now, and won't until after the election and likely the inauguration. So I don't have to decide for sure until next year. But we're going to be preparing and seeing what we need to do. Probably refinancing the house to get some extra money and make it ready for a sale, getting rid of more of our stuff, and figuring out what precisely we'll need to move, especially move our older adult kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I mean, as soon as they find somebody to install a stair lift at your appartment complex you are probably doomed.

My apartment complex is about 60% the elderly.  I don't talk politics with most of them, but I've already secured myself by developing a rapport with many of them due to constantly smoking out in our parking lot.  Also, we have two elevators - no stair lift needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...