US Politics: A democratic election Prospect Theory and practice

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I gotta go to work and I'll respond to the rest of this later, but yes, Trump needs congressional approval for the US to leave NATO, which is what I was talking about.  It's typical that you ignore that fact.

I wasn't saying leaving NATO. He doesn't have to leave NATO in order to ignore the treaty requirements or get around that. Im well aware of the specific law they passed recently to require an act of congress to officially leave. My point is that there is nothing congress can do to force Trump to order troops to fight. There are a couple small things that would get jn the way of that - namely, troops that are under attack can respond without explicit authorization- which is why i said that Trump would have plenty of warning to withdraw those troops stationed in the baltics.

And there is no NATO requirement for troop stationing.

It's typical of you to ignore what I wrote.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I mean, it's not like Kiefer Sutherland pioneered the notion of presidential assassination attempts. There's unfortunately a long and storied national history there. 

But did he pioneer being the leader of a vampire biking gang? Enquiring minds are asking the important questions.

Also yes, I do have a t-shirt with the sweaty saxophone player on it. And it looks good. Be jealous.  

[Phylum of Alexandria]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But did he pioneer being the leader of a vampire biking gang? Enquiring minds are asking the important questions.

 

He did forever change the way I see lo mein.

[Fez]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Does congress have the authority to force Trump to order troops? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. 

Sort of, yes. They can't easily force him to do things, but they can easily force him to not do things. Withdrawing troops from NATO bases costs money for instance, and Congress could include a rider in the appropriations bills that no funding may be used to withdraw troops. This is the exact tactic Republicans used to stop Obama from closing Gitmo. 

Granted, there is the wrinkle of how far Trump would try pushing his pardon power; e.g., ordering the defense secretary to illegally provide funding to withdraw troops and then pardoning him. Though that does run into the potential barrier of the military being supposed to ignore illegal orders. Also, I do think there's 5+ SCOTUS votes to reinterpret presidential pardon power if Trump tried being that much of an outright dictator.

[Jaxom 1974]

Isn't that all academic though? If, as Kal suggests, the Senate does shift to the Republicans, and the House stays in their control...Trump back in the White House means he's pulling out of NATO and no one says boo to him, right? Maybe some military people? But since his COTJC will be Flynn, or someone of his ilk, where's the brake there?

[The Big Stink]

The US isn't leaving NATO. It' just not happening. NATO would have to dissolve or be replaced by something else. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, The Big Stink said:

The US isn't leaving NATO. It' just not happening. NATO would have to dissolve or be replaced by something else. 

Well, shit. Folks, if he thinks this is the case you should be incredibly worried.

 

25 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Isn't that all academic though? If, as Kal suggests, the Senate does shift to the Republicans, and the House stays in their control...Trump back in the White House means he's pulling out of NATO and no one says boo to him, right? Maybe some military people? But since his COTJC will be Flynn, or someone of his ilk, where's the brake there?

To be clear I don't think that the House will switch to Republicans in this cycle, at least not right now. There are enough poor performing Rs in the House that I think it'd be a tough lift, and while gerrymandering is still a problem for Dems there's enough signs of support for dems that aren't Biden that I think it can narrowly switch back. Especially given how people are viewing the McCarthy/Johnson house. 

In order of probabilities, I would say that it's about 90% likely that the Senate goes to R, 60% POTUS, and 20% House. That will of course change depending on a great number of things. 

I would also say that even if the senate goes R there are a number of R senators that will push strongly against withdrawing out of NATO and have already shown spines against Trump. I don't think Murkowski or Romney would withdraw as an example. That said I don't think it really matters; all Trump needs to do is simply not do much of anything to back up NATO members. It'll get thrown into courts and be dragged out for years - or it might even cause another impeachment - but it hardly matters at that point. The damage will be done. 

53 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sort of, yes. They can't easily force him to do things, but they can easily force him to not do things. Withdrawing troops from NATO bases costs money for instance, and Congress could include a rider in the appropriations bills that no funding may be used to withdraw troops. This is the exact tactic Republicans used to stop Obama from closing Gitmo. 

Granted, there is the wrinkle of how far Trump would try pushing his pardon power; e.g., ordering the defense secretary to illegally provide funding to withdraw troops and then pardoning him. Though that does run into the potential barrier of the military being supposed to ignore illegal orders. Also, I do think there's 5+ SCOTUS votes to reinterpret presidential pardon power if Trump tried being that much of an outright dictator.

I wanted to say that this is an excellent point I had not considered. Thanks! I suspect there are other wrinkles that could be done in this vein too - things like 'rotating' the troops and leaving the bases and equipment for an extended period of time, of moving allocated money around to do some of that (similar to what he did with the wall funding) - but you're right, it's not something he can just do. 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But MAGA folks do in fact want to turn politics into a white trash action thriller.

Which is exactly what that Brit director of the forthcoming Civil War movie did.

He, like they, tragically (for all of us) have no idea what an all out military shooting civil war in this country would be like, and trust me, it won't be anything like what he imagined or they have.  It will be incoherent blood destructive chaos such as these people haven't got the information or imagination to conceive.  Particularly as we're now in this age of military technology in which distance or location makes no difference to drones for either destruction or surveillance and reporting.

As for magarat being too lazy -- he's surrounded by people who are not.  Look at what Bolton did to Cuba.

Edited April 1 by Zorral

[Kalbear]

Also note, @Jaxom 1974, that even if what you're worried about came to pass - that everything was controlled by Republicans - at least right now the law requires 2/3rds of the senate to withdraw from NATO:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/

Of course that law itself could be removed by a simple majority, so it's not absurdly protected from shenanigans, but it's something. It's also not clear if the law is constitutional and could be challenged on that part too. 

Edited April 1 by Kalbear

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

He did forever change the way I see lo mein.

My mom showed me the movie when I was too young (probably 6-8). I think it's why it took me a while to realize how great rice is. 

[Makk]

In good news Trump Media and Technology Group has shed value down to about $6.5 billion currently, which is well down from its peak of over $10 billion. Trumps stake is currently worth $3.7 billion, down for over 6. An almost 25% drop occurred on monday after new filings reported a $58 million loss for 2023 with only $4 revenue. Hopefully this downward trend can continue before Trump can pull any money out although with the investor base being made up entirely of maga trumpists and people who are there solely to take the trumpists money, it is difficult to know how they will react.   

[Maithanet]

It is pretty funny that Reddit went recently went public and, in spite of $800 million in revenue last year, was valued similarly with Trump Media.  Really drives home how incredibly out of whack the Trump Media valuation really is.  The company would still be a small fish in this marketplace even if it grew by 10X, and it is showing no signs of any such trend. 

[Zorral]

So who the eff is valuating this company at this preposterous mendacious value when everybody knows otherwise and why is it allowed to show itself at that value?  What is going on?  If one can't trust market valuations what can one trust, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Gorn]

Florida Supreme Court announced that both the abortion rights and recreational marijuana amendments will be on the ballot in November. At the same time, its 6-week ban will come into effect in 30 days, meaning that the issue will be at the forefront of voters' minds.

Good news for Democrats, considering that the polling support for abortion rights in the state is at 67%.

ETA: Actually, the 67% number is the support for recreational marijuana, the support for abortion rights is at 62%.

Edited April 1 by Gorn

[Jaxom 1974]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Also note, @Jaxom 1974, that even if what you're worried about came to pass - that everything was controlled by Republicans - at least right now the law requires 2/3rds of the senate to withdraw from NATO:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/

Of course that law itself could be removed by a simple majority, so it's not absurdly protected from shenanigans, but it's something. It's also not clear if the law is constitutional and could be challenged on that part too. 

Hmm...true on the current law and the likely shenanigans to eliminate it to hasten leaving NATO. How does that calculus change once the Dems start getting thrown in the slammer, as promised by various Trump surrogates though...?  If we're going to be all pessimistic about the whole thing...

[ThinkerX]

Given the trends in the last few elections, and that Republican incumbents continually push for policies that tick off many members of their own party, I figure the Democrats will retain their majority in the Senate and retake the House.

 

I also note that many Republican politicians seem to loathe each other more than they loathe the Democrats, making it nigh on impossible for them to accomplish many of the goals they claim to want. 

[Kalbear]

47 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Hmm...true on the current law and the likely shenanigans to eliminate it to hasten leaving NATO. How does that calculus change once the Dems start getting thrown in the slammer, as promised by various Trump surrogates though...?  If we're going to be all pessimistic about the whole thing...

Not incredibly differently honestly. Either they have a majority to pass a law to repeal, or they don't. 

[Fez]

25 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Given the trends in the last few elections, and that Republican incumbents continually push for policies that tick off many members of their own party, I figure the Democrats will retain their majority in the Senate and retake the House.

 

I also note that many Republican politicians seem to loathe each other more than they loathe the Democrats, making it nigh on impossible for them to accomplish many of the goals they claim to want. 

I do think Democrats are in a really good position to take the House back, and I think Biden is a little better than 50-50 to win re-election, but the Senate is a real tough nut to crack. Could Democrats get the clean sweep (minus WV) and keep a 50+VP majority? Sure, but I don't think the odds are in their favor at all right now.

However, if Biden wins and Democrats keep the House and are at 49 Senate seats, I could see a situation where Murkowski finally does flip sides in exchange for enough goodies and in the name of avoiding total gridlock.

But we'll see. I do think polling is basically totally broken right now, which is why I'm a bit more bullish than some on Biden's chances. But, without reliable polling, it's real hard to make any sort of informed forecast as to how things will go.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

So who the eff is valuating this company at this preposterous mendacious value when everybody knows otherwise and why is it allowed to show itself at that value?  What is going on?

Either there are enough Trump fanatics to drive the price up or there are some wealthy people who have reached an arrangement with Trump with respect to what he will do should he win in November and overvaluing the company is part of that arrangement.

[ThinkerX]

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

I do think Democrats are in a really good position to take the House back, and I think Biden is a little better than 50-50 to win re-election, but the Senate is a real tough nut to crack. Could Democrats get the clean sweep (minus WV) and keep a 50+VP majority? Sure, but I don't think the odds are in their favor at all right now.

However, if Biden wins and Democrats keep the House and are at 49 Senate seats, I could see a situation where Murkowski finally does flip sides in exchange for enough goodies and in the name of avoiding total gridlock.

But we'll see. I do think polling is basically totally broken right now, which is why I'm a bit more bullish than some on Biden's chances. But, without reliable polling, it's real hard to make any sort of informed forecast as to how things will go.

I figure the general election for 2024 will be a blurry carbon copy of the general election of 2020 - right down to control of the Senate coming down to a handful of special elections and an almost identical electoral map.

That said, after 2024, demographics and infighting will badly hurt the conservative movement. To me, the gerrymandering and voter suppression measures being taken by red states reek of desperation - note that many conservative policies fare poorly when the denizens of those states are allowed to vote on them directly.