US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Protecting voting rights

I do agree that after the GOP Senate blocks HR 1 is when the Dems need to go all in on getting Manchin on board to somehow get it passed.  Hell, I'd strip all of the campaign finance, ethics, and the redistricting commissions (which is the most likely aspect to get struck down by SCOTUS anyway) if he'd agree to pass the voting rights portion with 51 votes.

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

The fact that they can have this done and then fuck off somewhere else during is nonsense.

They should have to trade their salaries with the clerks that have to read it out loud.

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Yay bleak futurism that confirms my biases

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/david-shor-2020-democrats-autopsy-hispanic-vote-midterms-trump-gop.html

 

 

 

Well the important thing is that despite the dual valkyries of Cancel Culturists' and Impact Only-ists' best efforts, David Schor has landed on his feet.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well the important thing is that despite the dual valkyries of Cancel Culturists' and Impact Only-ists' best efforts, David Schor has landed on his feet.

Hell that piece demonstrates Shor should stick to data analysis.  His electoral prognosticating there is embarrassingly amateurish.

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'll tack this on here because it's off topic and because @Fragile Bird asked about the first one. There was another 8.0 earthquake in the same location just now. This time there is a tsunami warning and people in certain coastal areas are being told to move inland / to high ground. Almost the whole coastline has at least a beach threat, and maybe 20% of the north Island has a land threat. 

I just made a run to the grocery store and heard a story on the CBC about Iceland having some unusual earthquake activity as well. They’ve had 18,000 earthquakes in the last week, ranging from 1 to a high of 5.2 or so. The geologist being interviewed said this peninsula is have a “geological adjustment”, something they think hasn’t happened in 800 years. Apparently there’s a video interview between the PM of Iceland and the NYT on the internet where the room starts shaking and she apologizes for the distraction.  

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Hell that piece demonstrates Shor should stick to data analysis.  His electoral prognosticating there is embarrassingly amateurish.

Yeah definitely

also Obama believes him

 

[DMC]

57 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Yeah definitely

also Obama believes him

 

I wasn't referring to his ideas mentioned, nor the main thrust of his points on what the 2020 cycle taught - obviously education is indeed the primary schism that transcends/confounds the racial dynamics.  Again, I was referring specifically to the electoral prognostications part of the interview - e.g. the first sentence of the second paragraph you quoted.

ETA:  To explain, since I'm bored, his contention that under the best case scenario the Dems lose one or two seats in the Senate in 2022 is ludicrous.  All dude has to do is look at the seats that are up this cycle to know that's a very dumb assessment. 

Unless Sununu and Sandoval run, New Hampshire and Nevada are going to stay likely Dem in anything but a very bad environment.  Kelly, too, looks fairly safe in a favorable environment due to the fact with Ducey out the Arizona GOP isn't likely to field a strong challenger.  That leaves Warnock as the only potential one really at risk if we're talking an "exceptionally good" cycle.

Then, you have the three open seats (PA, OH, NC) and Johnson as potential pickups.  Fetterman has a very good chance at the PA seat even in a neutral environment.  In a best case scenario, the other three should be tossups as well, depending on the nominees.

Other examples are him focusing on 2002 as the outlier when the president's party picked up seats, without even mentioning 1998 which is the much more interesting and natural comparison.  Plus he seems to be comparing/warning that the midterms could result in something similar to the 2010 disaster with redistricting which is pretty nonsensical. 

Moreover, in terms of gerrymandering any experienced hand will tell you the GOP is limited in how much more of an advantage they can get this time around - precisely because of how much damage they did following the 2010 census.  Not to mention this time around it's much more difficult to maximize your advantage (this goes for both parties) due to the uncertainty of whether the Trump, and anti-Trump, coalitions are a more permanent shift or if they were more unique to him being on the ballot/in office. 

Regardless, the Dems are not going to be out of contention for the House for the next decade no matter what happens in 2022.  That's not just cynical, it's just silly.

[Kalbear]

Okay, THIS should kill Cuomo. It probably won't, but it really should. Also fuck him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/nyregion/cuomo-nursing-home-deaths.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

 

[SpaceChampion]

How does this happen?  Do states not have constitutions that determine what powers the governor have?

Also:   Bye, Mitch!  Get out the way!  Get out the way!

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

 

That tweet is pretty..twittery.  McConnell is trying to change the vacancy law to ensure his succession goes the way he wants it.  Ted Kennedy did a pretty similar thing right before dying.

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

How does this happen?  Do states not have constitutions that determine what powers the governor have?

Also:   Bye, Mitch!  Get out the way!  Get out the way!

It happens when the Republicans gerrymander the hell out of the state legislative districts to the point they hold the State Senate 30 to 8, and the State House 75 to 25. They can change the law anyway they want to because they have absolute control over legislation.  Both Kentucky and Kansas have Democratic Governors whose veto can be easily overridden by the Republican controlled state legislatures. On the flip side both Massachusetts and Maryland have the opposite power balance.

They can also do so because this is not a revision of the state constitution, which would entail getting a vote of the people to change the process. Rather this is simply the change of the current state law governing the process.

Quote

The new legislation, Senate Bill 228 — dubbed by some inside the state Legislature as the Daniel Cameron Election Bill — was filed on February 10, 2021, during the Kentucky General Assembly’s 30-day “short” session. The bill alters current state statute that allows the governor to appoint a replacement in the event of a vacancy to the U.S. Senate. If the bill becomes law, the appointment to fill a vacancy will be selected from a list of three names submitted by the state executive committee of the same political party as the senator who held the vacant seat. According to the bill, the appointee from that list will then serve until a successor has been elected by voters. The legislation goes on to list instructions on when elections take place in the event of a vacancy. 

(from the Intercept report on the proposed change with the bold emphasis added.)

If I remember correctly this same thing happened in North Carolina where the Republicans stripped the Democratic Governor of the power to replace a senator with the person of his choice.

[Fez]

25 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

If I remember correctly this same thing happened in North Carolina where the Republicans stripped the Democratic Governor of the power to replace a senator with the person of his choice.

There's currently 37 states that allow governors to appoint replacement senators to serve until the next regularly scheduled election. 

The other 13 require a quick special election unless its within X days of the next regularly scheduled election (8 of those 13 do allow interim appointments, the other 5 keep the seat vacant).

Of the 37 states that could have a replacement theoretically serving up to 2 years, 6 of them require the governor to appointment someone from the party of the previous senator. And frankly, it should be standard practice for all states to have such requirement. Voters select someone to represent them in the senate for 6 years. For the governor to have the ability to replace them with someone else who holds the opposite views on almost every major issue, simply because they died; is essentially overturning the will of the voters.

And this does cut both ways already, since Arizona is one of the six states. If Kelly or Sinema died or resigned, Gov. Ducey would have to appoint a Democrat.

[Maithanet]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

And this does cut both ways already, since Arizona is one of the six states. If Kelly or Sinema died or resigned, Gov. Ducey would have to appoint a Democrat.

But shouldn't we assume that the Arizona GOP would just change that law in the event that Kelly or Sinema died? 

I agree with your larger point that appointing someone of the same party makes sense.  If Ducey or Beshear find some milquetoast moderate Democrat/Republican, then that's fine, they're at least caucusing with the same party and representing the state in largely the same way.  Hell, the Senate would be vastly improved if it had more Susan Collins and fewer Josh Hawleys. 

[DMC]

7 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

How does this happen?  Do states not have constitutions that determine what powers the governor have?

Also:   Bye, Mitch!  Get out the way!  Get out the way!

To add to the above, here's a list of the different vacancy laws by state.  It's not that uncommon for states to change them - and it's quite common for states to at least consider changing them.

As for McConnell leaving, I don't think he is.  Perhaps he's worried about health issues, as the Intercept piece mentioned that seems prudent (well, I suppose it'd be prudent for any 79 year old man).  But I wouldn't take this an indication he's considering resigning anytime soon.

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But shouldn't we assume that the Arizona GOP would just change that law in the event that Kelly or Sinema died? 

Certainly possible; just like the Massachusetts Dems changed the laws to protect John Kerry's seat in 2004 in case he won the presidency. Though they were a little better since they made the change prior to anything happening. With Ducey on the outs with his own party, I could see him making a stand against an ex post facto change in appointment law. But that can't be counted on.

In an ideal world, this would be something enshrined in all state constitutions.

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

To add to the above, here's a list of the different vacancy laws by state.  It's not that uncommon for states to change them - and it's quite common for states to at least consider changing them.

As for McConnell leaving, I don't think he is.  Perhaps he's worried about health issues, as the Intercept piece mentioned that seems prudent (well, I suppose it'd be prudent for any 79 year old man).  But I wouldn't take this an indication he's considering resigning anytime soon.

If Democrats hang on to the senate in 2022, I could see McConnell calling it quits. Because then the odds would be that they hold it through 2026, and even in the senate being in the minority isn't that fun. But right now, with the strong possibility of becoming majority leader again in 2022 (or even sooner if anything bad happens; there's a lot of old senators), I can't see him giving up that chance.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Because then the odds would be that they hold it through 2026

Meh, the 2024 cycle (Class 1) requires the Dems defending a lot more seats - including Montana and West Virginia - compared to the 2022 cycle (Class 3).  2024 is 23 to 10 Dems whereas 2022 is 20 GOP and 14 Dem - plus the three open seat pickup opportunities for the Dems in 2022 in purplish states (and while Iowa may not seem purplish anymore, there's still the distinct possibility Grassley doesn't run again).  2022 is a much more favorable map right now for Dems than 2024.  Of course, that's mitigated by 2022 being a midterm with a Dem president, but still.

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

In an ideal world, this would be something enshrined in all state constitutions.

Yeah if I was king of all 50 states, the vacancy law would be a special election requirement within 60-90 days of the vacancy with an interim appointment required to be of the same party.  That seems the most fair.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I apparently missed it, but the 10 hour reading of the bill is already concluded, to be followed by 3 hour debate today + vote-a-rama on amendments. What a pointless bunch of hoo-hah from the GoP. At the same time, they seem to think the jobs report shows the economy is roaring back and this stimulus bill is pointless.

A weird situation where the opposition party thinks the jobs report is Great News! while the party in power says it portends doom and gloom (correctly pointing out that the 378k growth implies return to normalcy by 2023).

[Martell Spy]

AP poll puts Biden job approval at 60 percent
Other public polling published this week has shown Biden with similar margins of support.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/05/poll-biden-job-approval-60-percent-473849

Quote

 

A solid majority of Americans say they approve of President Joe Biden’s early job performance, according to a new survey, with even more respondents giving him positive marks for his management of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday reports that 60 percent of U.S. adults surveyed approve of Biden’s handling of his job, including 94 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Republicans.

On the subject of the pandemic, 70 percent of adults surveyed approve of how he has handled the public health crisis, a figure that includes 97 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of Republicans.

 

 

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Meh, the 2024 cycle (Class 1) requires the Dems defending a lot more seats - including Montana and West Virginia - compared to the 2022 cycle (Class 3).  2024 is 23 to 10 Dems whereas 2022 is 20 GOP and 14 Dem - plus the three open seat pickup opportunities for the Dems in 2022 in purplish states (and while Iowa may not seem purplish anymore, there's still the distinct possibility Grassley doesn't run again).  2022 is a much more favorable map right now for Dems than 2024.  Of course, that's mitigated by 2022 being a midterm with a Dem president, but still.

Let's say Dems have a good, but not extremely good, 2022. All their incumbents win, and they pick up PA and WI to get to 52 seats. That seems reasonable if the economy is recovery strongly and Biden remains popular. There's the possibility of course of a 2002-style rally around the President election, and Dems get more than that, but I wouldn't count on it. And also of course it could, and probably even will be, a normal midterm and Dems lose the senate.

In 2024, I'm operating under the assumption that Biden wins re-election, because Presidents almost always do. If that happens, there's really only 3 seats I see at high risk, West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio. It's possible that all 3 lose, since I think Tester, Brown, and Manchin all would've lost if they'd faced the 2020 electorate instead of the 2018 electorate. But it's had for me to make the assumption yet that the sky-high 2020 turnout is the new normal for elections. And if even 1 wins, and Biden carries every other senator across the finish line, Dems keep the senate (again, assuming they can hit 52 in '22).

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

And this does cut both ways already, since Arizona is one of the six states. If Kelly or Sinema died or resigned, Gov. Ducey would have to appoint a Democrat.

As @Maithanet points out it is likely the the Arizona Republican legislature would change the law if they anticipated an upcoming opening. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the change to limiting Gubernatorial appointments to members of one party is a method pushed by Republicans. Which would almost certainly change in the case of Arizona, if Kelly or Sinema were likely to unexpectedly fail to serve out their term. The Democrats have favored special elections. That was the case in Massachusetts. I'd argue the special election is a better, more democratic (note the small "d") method.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

n 2024, I'm operating under the assumption that Biden wins re-election, because Presidents almost always do. If that happens, there's really only 3 seats I see at high risk, West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio.

That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making, albeit reasonable ones.  I'd say McConnell isn't as dorky as us trying to game this out, but actually I suspect he's one of the few MCs that is.  In addition to those 3 seats potentially at high risk in 2024, you got Stabenow in MI, Klobuchar in MN, Rosen in NV, and Casey in PA.  While I'd put them at likely Dem right now - as opposed to Lean Dem where I agree I'd put Brown in OH - you never know in such purplish states.