US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[Kalbear]

57 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Just for your info, the market correction has started. Expect to see a very volatile market for a couple of weeks, I think. September, ah, September!

I really don't think this is the market correction. I think this is a specific reaction to the China situation, which really isn't the same thing at all. 

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Kaligator said:

I really don't think this is the market correction. I think this is a specific reaction to the China situation, which really isn't the same thing at all. 

Which is, of course, possible.  People have been predicting A Big Crash for a long time though.  The only certainty is that it will come.  Markets go up and markets go down, long live the market ... I guess? 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

I am joking, but not entirely. There's a Democratic member of the Arizona legislature that almost certainly first got elected because his name is Cesar Chavez; though that's a bit different since the name and the alignment match up. There's also been multiple cases of people with names like John F Kennedy and not campaigning at all doing surprisingly well. There was one race in either 2018 or 2020, I think in Texas though I'm struggling to find the news story about it, where someone like that won their primary even; lost the general election though.

Find some person named Trump, get them to run as a Republican in a lower tier race, but not campaign or say anything ever; and I'd be very curious as to what vote share they ended up getting.

Hey, I've seen this movie. Eddie Murphy in 1992's "The distinguished gentleman."

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Kaligator said:

I really don't think this is the market correction. I think this is a specific reaction to the China situation, which really isn't the same thing at all. 

Last week Jim Cramer was telling viewers that historically speaking, Sept. 17 kicks off September volatility, and he talked about taking profit in some stocks that had seen a very strong summer. The reasons for volatility, corrections or whatever happens are almost always different every time. At the end of August I had posted about the number of new highs made in the S&P during the month, something that has happened before market crashes in the past. People have been predicting a volatile September for some time now. No one knew that events in China would have an impact on the market back in August.

[Zorral]

Lawyers for Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg expect ‘other indictments’

New tax dox found in a basement.

Quote

 

. . . .Vance’s prosecutors revealed in a closed-door conference that they discovered new documents in a Trump Org. honcho’s basement, Skarlatos said. Prosecutors handed over that new batch of paperwork to the defense prior to the hearing.

“When we were back in chambers, it was represented to us by the District Attorney this package includes documents that were found in co-conspirators’ basements that are tax documents that go directly to the issues,” said Skarlatos.

Merchan set the next court date for Jan. 20, 2022. The judge expects trial to begin in roughly one year.. . . 

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-allen-weisselberg-trump-organization-indictments-manhattan-trial-20210920-7xdqglslkfclxeky6jm6mhug3i-story.html

 

[Tywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Are we sure that Sinema et. al. aren’t really Republicans?

Sinema & House moderates threaten to tank their own bill if it doesn’t come up for a vote and pass next week.

Progressives didn’t learn the lessons Republicans have been teaching about brinkmanship; moderates did.

That's a bit unfair. Sinema has a lot of odd positions, but she's not a Republican, and the House moderates just want their infrastructure deal locked in. Manchin though has more in common with old school moderate Republicans than your average liberal progressive. 

[Zorral]

The greatest anxiety is if Evergrande defaults and the US government defaults as well -- doesn't raise the federal debt ceiling -- that's all she wrote, folks.  So ya, scary.

 

[Week]

21 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The greatest anxiety is if Evergrande defaults and the US government defaults as well -- doesn't raise the federal debt ceiling -- that's all she wrote, folks.  So ya, scary.

 

These aren't related and the latter will not happen under sane leadership (it didn't even under insane debt/bankruptcy-obsession leadership).

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

These aren't related and the latter will not happen under sane leadership (it didn't even under insane debt/bankruptcy-obsession leadership).

You have no idea how much I am wishing you are correct!  On the other hand, maybe you do.  These times are too interesting.

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If the only way to get your deal locked in is to threaten to tank both deals, along with your majority in the House and Senate, then I’m kind of thinking they’re being worse than Republicans right now. 

Sinema isn't threatening to tank the first bill, she can't anyway it already passed the Senate and there's nothing more for her to do. What she said was that if the House votes down the first bill on Sept 27 she's done with reconciliation and won't support the second bill.

Meanwhile AOC says that she and about 45 other progressives will vote down the first bill on Sept 27 if the reconciliation bill isn't already passed.

Now in theory these two positions aren't incompatible. The problem is that, for a variety of reasons, Democrats have moved way too slowly and it seems very unlikely that the reconciliation bill will be ready to vote on by Sept 27.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If the only way to get your deal locked in is to threaten to tank both deals, along with your majority in the House and Senate, then I’m kind of thinking they’re being worse than Republicans right now. 

As Fez pointed out, both wings of the party are threatening this.

Quote

Moderate Democrats are starting to treat progressive Democrats like Republicans treat the Democratic Party - governing like shit & then expecting the people you’ve been treating like enemies to bail them out.

It honestly reeks of desperation, so I wonder which donors have these corporate shills by the short & curlies. Whomever it is, I hope they make it painful for these duplicitous fucks.

Idk about that, and it's a two way street. It's been an issue for a while now as both factions are having an increasingly hard time working with one another, with moderates largely getting their way at the micro level. I understand why progressives want to put their feet down and fight it out, but I don't think it's wise to do it on this issue, especially when you consider what the likely outcomes of that will look like.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

This country is so fucked.  We're not going to do shit on climate change until we build walls along the beaches where the refugee camps start popping up.

[ThinkerX]

old adage appears to be true: democratic party really can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

My personal suspicion is there will be a lot of closed room back and forth last minute bickering that results in a 'deal' with ill feelings all the way around,.  But that's just me... 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This country is so fucked.  We're not going to do shit on climate change until we build walls along the beaches where the refugee camps start popping up.

By the time we have the desire to build walls chances are good we'll also have the desire to simply shoot people. 

But yes, this is Yet Another example of why I'm so pessimistic. The US can do nothing fast except give rich people breaks. Rich people do not, as a rule, care that much about climate change and likely see it as an ability to get even richer. And people will oppose things like vaccines for shitty reasons already - what happens when we have actual emergencies and problems?

The only way the US will act well on climate change is if somehow it's revealed to be a radical islamic plot. 

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, Fez said:

I am joking, but not entirely. There's a Democratic member of the Arizona legislature that almost certainly first got elected because his name is Cesar Chavez; though that's a bit different since the name and the alignment match up. There's also been multiple cases of people with names like John F Kennedy and not campaigning at all doing surprisingly well. There was one race in either 2018 or 2020, I think in Texas though I'm struggling to find the news story about it, where someone like that won their primary even; lost the general election though.

Find some person named Trump, get them to run as a Republican in a lower tier race, but not campaign or say anything ever; and I'd be very curious as to what vote share they ended up getting.

Of course one of the two U.S. Senators from Louisiana right now is John Kennedy. I just looked up his career and he was a Democratic office holder in Louisiana until he switched to the Republicans in 2007. Louisiana is a special case because of its jungle primary, but I think he must have more going for him than just the name.

As a name expert I know that names have an influence on voters, especially in elections where there is no incumbent and where there hasn't been much publicity. The most notorious case was the 1986 Democratic statewide primary in Illinois, where two Lyndon LaRouche devotees named Mark Fairchild and Janice A. Hart defeated George Sangmeister and Aurelia Pucinski for the nominations for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State. Not only were Fairchild and Hart very "nice" sounding names compared to Sangmeister and Pucinski, but they got particularly large votes in African-American areas because it was a lot more possible that a Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart could be Black than a George Sangmeister or Aurelia Pucinski could be Black. Neither of them was Black, but there hadn't been any discussion of those two races in the media or any ads to speak of, if I remember correctly. But that was a special case, I think.

But I think in any race with a good amount of advertizing that whatever advantages a nice or well-known name gives by itself could be easily overcome. Actually being related to Donald Trump in a Republican primary (or actually being related to Barack Obama, the Kennedys etc. in a Democratic primary) would be a different matter, as then we have real nepotism and family worship operating rather than just a name factor. 

[Tywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

But I think in any race with a good amount of advertizing that whatever advantages a nice or well-known name gives by itself could be easily overcome. 

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

Yes, it's definitely the case that we routinely rule out idiots in elections and vote for the smart one

[Ormond]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

I believe that almost all the "cosmetic" factors operate most strongly when there is no incumbent running. I don't think that you defeat a well-known incumbent who has no recent scandals or gaffes simply by nominating someone who is taller and has a "nicer" name.  And the advantages we're talking about are small factors compared to party affiliation and other political beliefs and are only going to change outcomes in close elections, even when there isn't an incumbent. 

[Tywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I believe that almost all the "cosmetic" factors operate most strongly when there is no incumbent running. I don't think that you defeat a well-known incumbent who has no recent scandals or gaffes simply by nominating someone who is taller and has a "nicer" name.  And the advantages we're talking about are small factors compared to party affiliation and other political beliefs and are only going to change outcomes in close elections, even when there isn't an incumbent. 

I'm sure that's accurate, but unless there's been a change in the data I still think it's true that superficial things like height, weight, baldness, etc. play a big enough role that they can swing an election. Even having a name that starts with the earliest letter in the alphabet can make a difference, all of which is silly. If we're looking at various cosmetic factors, just look at the first presidential debate in 1960, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

[TrackerNeil]

11 hours ago, Kaligator said:

The only way the US will act well on climate change is if somehow it's revealed to be a radical islamic plot. 

If we make conservatives believe that Obama thinks climate change is caused by God, Republicans will promptly start legislating the other way.