US Politics: Sitting in Judgement

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

So far, only Ty has offered up a reason why POTUS is extra demanding. The Cuban Missile Crisis. And, tbf, that's a pretty good one. 

The thing is it happens more than we really know. Obama was a senator and that's a really hard job if you give a shit. When he became president he was kinda shocked by how much more it was. You can be a lazy politician and get away with a lot, but unless your staff is amazing it really shows. Being a dedicated one is a lot more work than I think people realize. It consumes all your time, you're under a microscope constantly, your family often hates you, you don't get much credit typically while having to take so much blame. It's a really shit job. Like I would much rather be a governor of a small state or mayor of a small town than president. Being a CEO is a better gig. Shit just being on the board is.

58 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Maybe, but what we know, right now, is that incumbency absolutely matters. Most presidents are reelected; in my 54 years on this planet, only three have been defeated in a reelection bid. I think it's only 9 or 10 in all of US history. Before Carter, when the hell was the last president to lose? So you might be right, but I think, at this point, you are speculating. 

I would not look at anything prior to the modern presidency. And even that window may be too large. Things have changed rapidly and IMO it's better to try to predict an unknown future than rely on a past that is so different. 

[Tywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Herbert Hoover?

The dude Carter beat lol. 

[Zorral]

The Chesebro Docs
The Supreme Pressure Campaign
Trump Attorneys Gamed Out Which Supreme Court Justices Might Help Them Steal the Election
By Josh Kovensky | February 14, 2024 10:10 a.m.

Shared Link not available for this.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/the-supreme-pressure-campaign

Quote

 

Donald Trump’s attorneys in 2020 thought that they had one advantage which nobody — not the Democrats, not lower-court judges, not Congress — could outmatch: the Supreme Court.

At their most feverish, attorneys for Trump believed that the Supreme Court could eventually be bullied into declaring Joe Biden the loser of the 2020 election and Trump the winner. They deployed a series of strategies, detailed in a trove of documents given to Michigan prosecutors by attorney Ken Chesebro, aimed at stoking a chaotic stalemate in Congress, thereby forcing the Court to act. 

The same set of real-time emails and texts between Trump campaign officials and attorneys also shows how the group sought to influence individual justices as they filed lawsuits seeking to overturn Biden’s victory in several swing states. In the trove, attorneys game out which justices would view their claims most favorably, and speculate over how certain claims or lawsuits could create pressure to build a majority on the court.

At times, the Trump attorneys recognized that their play for the Supreme Court was a Hail Mary. It’s from that desperation, the documents suggest, that the push for chaos and delay emerged — a nearly hopeless quest to leave the Supreme Court as the only actor left standing, with Congress buckling under procedural radicalism. 

But at other points, the lawyers seemed deadly serious in their speculation. John Eastman, the law professor, wrote in one email that he believed the Supreme Court would probably agree to invalidate Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions about the election, but that the justices were “likely grappling with” the question of what “remedy” to provide. Chief Justice John Roberts would want “to account for the riots angle if they go our way,” Eastman imagined.  ....

 

Quote

 

.... But it wasn’t until mid December, after the fake electors were sworn in — and after the Supreme Court signaled that it would not help the Trump campaign, rejecting on Dec. 11 a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas — that conversations about how to exert pressure on the justices began to accelerate. 

The New York Times reported on one of the emails obtained by TPM, in which Chesebro cited “wild chaos” as potentially forcing the Court to act, and another in which he stated that the question of whether to bring suits before the Court was “political.” 

The trove of documents obtained by TPM paints a fuller picture. TPM obtained the documents after Michigan prosecutors with Attorney General Dana Nessel (D)’s office sent out a tranche of records provided by Chesebro as part of his cooperation with their investigation. Chesebro supplied the documents, which include emails, texts, and legal memos, to prosecutors. The records do not provide a comprehensive accounting of the Trump campaign’s entire effort to reverse the President’s loss; they reflect what Chesebro provided as he sought to avoid further prosecution.  ....

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

True, but it's worth noting that the current incumbent's rival this year will be one of those 3 who lost re-election.

So...you're saying he's due?

I mean, this is one of the most unprecedented things - a party that has so little control that an actual loser is not forced out and does not bow out willingly. Usually when you get a loser the party does a lot of postmortem and figures out what they did wrong and prioritizes future candidates based on some of those strategies. What the GOP did in this case is to just...claim they didn't lose.

In any case, using past long-dead history to justify analysis here is pretty flawed. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So...you're saying he's due?

I mean, this is one of the most unprecedented things - a party that has so little control that an actual loser is not forced out and does not bow out willingly. Usually when you get a loser the party does a lot of postmortem and figures out what they did wrong and prioritizes future candidates based on some of those strategies. What the GOP did in this case is to just...claim they didn't lose.

In any case, using past long-dead history to justify analysis here is pretty flawed.

Well, I'm not saying anything strongly. If anyone seems to benefit from breaking from conventional wisdom, it's Trump. 

But still, he's a proven loser. Saying that incumbents might not enjoy the benefits they used to is probably true, but I don't know if that means the guy who already lost to the same candidate has an advantage. Nikky Haley or really anyone else, definitely. But Trump? His main strength is his adoring base, not anyone else.

[Corvinus85]

Oh no, the horror!!! The horror!!!... of doing the right thing. https://www.axios.com/2024/02/14/house-republicans-have-a-george-santos-hangover-after-losing-his-seat

Quote

What they're saying: "It was a big mistake," said Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas). "Santos was a solid vote for the conservative voice and we kicked him out."

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) decried "virtue signaling" by Republicans who supported expulsion, saying "our chickens have come home to roost."

 

[Tywin et al.]

It's hard not to laugh at a Congressman saying a lying piece of shit is a solid vote for the conservative voice. 

God these people are just getting worse and worse. 

[Maithanet]

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Americans might or might not like Joe Biden, but they sure don't seem to have a problem with Democrats in general.

Going a bit bigger picture, I think we have pretty ample evidence from 2017-2024 elections that Trumpism without Trump is an electoral loser.  When the general momentum is favoring Democrats, it can lead to a bloodbath for Republicans (2017-2019 elections), and when the political winds ought to be favoring Republicans (2021-23) it results in numerous missed opportunities.  Given inflation + how unpopular Biden was in 2022, that election should have been a 2010 redux, but it really, really wasn't. 

The big, unanswerable question for 2024 is whether or not the problem for Republicans in 21-23 is that Trumpism isn't popular or that Trumpism only works with Trump on the ballot.  Most political parties would do some rebranding and make changes after losing a presidential election.  But instead, Republicans have just doubled down on Trump and his message. 

Trump didn't win in 2020, and it's hard to really make the case that Trump is stronger now than he was then (i'd argue he's clearly weaker).  The problem is that Biden is also a weaker candidate than he was in 2020, when he was running on bland competence and eccentric memes.  His record is pretty unquestionably mixed for his first 3 years in office.  Biden has incumbency, and the economy is improving, and we just have to hope that is enough. 

[Zorral]

From the Sidebar to today's TM entry on the Cheseboro Dox Plot to Steal the Election.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/the-supreme-pressure-campaign

Quote

 

.... On Dec. 31, the attorneys scrambled to file. In their minds, portions of the elaborate strategy which could lead to a Trump victory, hinged on the federal suit — Eastman was saying that the suit might spur Georgia state lawmakers to use the legislature to recertify Trump’s fake electors as representing the state in Congress on Jan. 6; the group had a broader strategy of appealing lawsuits from enough states to the Supreme Court that the supposedly contested states would exceed Biden’s electoral vote margin. 

“When will this be filed?” Marks asked. “The delay is adversely affecting Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.”

Cleta Mitchell, a voter fraud alarmist and attorney for Trump, replied: “Our challenge is the verification. We are working on that now. Have been all day. Not simple.” 

That was key: later that day, Eastman filed the federal complaint which included a verification that Trump signed, swearing that he believed the data in the state suit was “true and correct” — even though it had been shown to be bogus. 

It was another attorney, Georgia counsel Kurt Hilbert, who brought the state suit and wrote the first draft of the second, federal suit, who closed the discussion before Eastman filed, with a worry: “Not a good idea to bind the President ’under penalty of perjury.’ …I certainly cannot and would not authorize that.”

But Trump signed the authorization, leading to the ire of a California federal judge in 2022, who said the decision to file was evidence of a crime by both Eastman and Trump. 

 

 

[Zorral]

You know the whole deal of this fascist thing support is that there's going to be plenty of plunder for you too.

But, Nope. ALL for one and that is He!

Remember fascists, what other fascists say, just like you they mean what they say  So listen.  No money for you, Nope, Nope, Nope.

"Personal slush fund": Lara Trump vows "every single penny" at RNC will go to help Trump
Her comment may be a "surprise GOP candidates for the House and Senate and other offices" who rely on RNC cash

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/14/personal-slush-fund-lara-vows-every-penny-at-rnc-will-go-to-help/?

 

[Zorral]

48 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The problem is that Biden is also a weaker candidate than he was in 2020

Disagree.

[DireWolfSpirit]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

This will all be about turnout in a few swing states, with Swifties saving the day.

I dont think your getting the full measure of how turned off swing state voters are with Biden. He will be fortunate to pick up one to two of the 6-7 states generally viewed as swing states.

In other words, fortunate because its unlikely he will achieve winning even 2 of them imo.

Edited February 14 by DireWolfSpirit

[Kalbear]

Just now, Zorral said:

Disagree.

From a polling and enthusiasm standpoint I don't know how you come to any other conclusion. 

 

50 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump didn't win in 2020, and it's hard to really make the case that Trump is stronger now than he was then (i'd argue he's clearly weaker).  The problem is that Biden is also a weaker candidate than he was in 2020, when he was running on bland competence and eccentric memes.  His record is pretty unquestionably mixed for his first 3 years in office.  Biden has incumbency, and the economy is improving, and we just have to hope that is enough. 

While I mostly agree Trump is weaker there are some points to consider that I think people have glossed over some - his organization. Trump for 2024 shows significant improvement in being able to work the system in his favor. An example of this is how his campaign has done and redone the primaries to do many more winner-take-all approaches well ahead of when they needed to do it. This is the kind of thing that flummoxed Trump in 2016 and even 2020, but now appears to be well set up as far as a plan and logic behind it. 

There's also been a lot of concerted effort to elect or appoint Trumpy local electors, runners and the like in key states. It's never clear if that's going to matter a whole lot, but it is another example of his group learning and getting better in ways they were bad. 

I know you were talking about Trump the Candidate, but Trump the candidacy I suspect is probably better than they were previously.

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I dont think your getting the full measure of how turned off swing state voters are with Biden. He will be fortunate to pick up one to two of the 6-7 states generally viewed as swing states.

Citation needed. Is this you wanting to prove yourself right, or is this actually backed by data?

For example, here's a site that shows polling breakdowns by state:

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/

(it does not validate how good those polls are, but it's a start). In that one it has Biden winning Penn and Minn, losing Mich, Arizona, Georgia (by 8 points!), Wisconsin and Nevada (by 8 points too!). If that was the case Trump would win, but not by a lot. 

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I would not look at anything prior to the modern presidency. And even that window may be too large. Things have changed rapidly and IMO it's better to try to predict an unknown future than rely on a past that is so different. 

If Trump loses in November, would that change your mind?

[AncalagonTheBlack]

 

[AncalagonTheBlack]

 

[Zorral]

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

From a polling and enthusiasm standpoint I don't know how you come to any other conclusion. 

See Josh Marshall and polling, cited above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lots of political news on this Valentine's Day, which I wasn't expecting, as there wasn't anything except will Taylor Swift touchdown or Taylor Swift touched down for days.

Pennsylvania Dems seal House majority with special election win
Jim Prokopiak won a seat in the Philadelphia suburbs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/13/pennsylvania-dems-house-majority-special-election-00141340

Quote

.... Jim Prokopiak’s election to the Bucks County seat will give Democrats a 102-100 majority in the House, which they have sought to defend in four special elections in the past year. A Republican lawmaker’s resignation last week shifted the power back to Democrats, and Prokopiak’s win kept it in place. ....

White House denies Johnson's requests to meet with Biden on border
Democratic officials have continuously pushed the speaker to take up the Senate-passed foreign aid bill, as he insists on a border component.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/14/congress/no-biden-johnson-meetings-on-border-00141449

Quote

 

But Biden and White House officials have repeatedly said they believe the House should take up the Senate-passed national security supplemental instead of meeting and renegotiating a new package, after months of bipartisan Senate talks on the border ended in a bill that failed to even pass the upper chamber. Johnson had declared that legislation dead on arrival in the House, arguing it didn't go far enough to tighten border security, and did not directly engage in those discussions beforehand.

“What is there to negotiate? Really, truly, what is the one-on-one negotiation about when he’s been presented with exactly what he’s asked for?” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “He’s negotiating with himself.”

Johnson said Wednesday that he will “continue to insist” on a meeting with Biden, as House Republicans try to draft their own solution on the border.

 

Good luck with that latter,  Johnson-dead-man-walking.

Edited February 14 by Zorral

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, Zorral said:

See Josh Marshall and polling, cited above.

One election where there was a snowstorm is your source that things will be generically better for dems?

 

 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

If Trump loses in November, would that change your mind?

Not really in the macro sense if I'm being honest. Incumbency certainly matters, but I think that pattern is more likely to hold for congressional and state races. The presidency may become more chaotic, especially as divisions intensify.