USnews: Spooky Legislative Consequences

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USnews: Spooky Legislative Consequences

Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed.
Yes	160	32.92%
No	326	67.08%
Total:	486 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:

Next republican Vice President identified.

He'll likely be out in 15ish years, so timing seems about right.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2021 22:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 21:17

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Dapper_Swindler posted:

the owner heard floyds brother say "i can breath" and tried to make it a thing as a good thing.

Raiders, not Vikings.

Raiders is the sack of poo poo with the world's worst haircut. Vikings are literally organized crime. Easy to confuse.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 05:46

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

News coming out that Trump appointed DHS IG and known r�sum� fraudster has blocked investigations into the Lafayette Square assault and general secret service superspreadery.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1384843698836492291

quote:

The chief federal watchdog for the Secret Service blocked investigations proposed by career staff last year to scrutinize the agency�s handling of the George Floyd protests in Lafayette Square and the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks, according to documents and people with knowledge of his decisions.

Both matters involved decisions by then-President Donald Trump that may have affected actions by the agency.

Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security�s inspector general, rejected his staff�s recommendation to investigate what role the Secret Service played in the forcible clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square on June 1, according to internal documents and two people familiar with his decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions.

After the sudden charge by police on the largely peaceful protesters, the Secret Service was able to move Trump to a church at the edge of the park, where the White House staged a photo opportunity for the president.

Cuffari also sought to limit � and then the office ultimately shelved � a probe into whether the Secret Service flouted federal protocols put in place to detect and reduce the spread of the coronavirus within its workforce, according to the records.

Hundreds of Secret Service officers were either infected with the coronavirus or had to quarantine after potential exposure last year as Trump continued to travel and hold campaign events during the pandemic.

quote:

Erica Paulson, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said in a statement that Cuffari prioritizes investigations based on a limited budget and greenlights those that target the highest risks and are likely to have the greatest impact.

�Our office does not have the resources to approve every oversight proposal,� she said. �We have less than 400 auditors and inspectors to cover the entire Department of Homeland Security, an agency with almost half a million employees and contractors. Like all IGs, we have to make tough strategic decisions about how to best use our resources for greatest impact across the Department.�

Paulson continued: �In both of these cases, we determined that resources would have a higher impact elsewhere.�

Staffers inside the inspector general�s office privately complained that Cuffari � a Trump nominee confirmed in 2019 who previously worked for two GOP governors in Arizona, Jan Brewer and Doug Ducey � at times appeared skittish about investigations that could potentially criticize the president�s policies or actions, according to the people with knowledge of discussions.

quote:

The revelation that he declined to approve the two proposed Secret Service investigations could fuel criticism that Cuffari provided weak oversight of the second-largest federal agency at a time when Trump frequently used the Department of Homeland Security to implement some of his most polarizing policies. The House Committee on Homeland Security, whose chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has raised alarm about what he considers Cuffari�s failure to conduct thorough investigations, has scheduled an oversight hearing Wednesday on the inspector general�s oversight.

�Cuffari pulled his punches on exactly the type of sensitive reviews his office was created to perform,� said Nick Schwellenbach, senior investigator at the Project On Government Oversight. �It doesn�t look like he�s an independent watchdog.�

Last summer, staff investigators in the inspector general�s office believed they had strong arguments for taking a close look at the Secret Service�s handling of both the Lafayette Square clearing and the agency�s coronavirus protocols.

Both issues had spurred intense criticism � the first for violating Americans� right to protest and the second for potentially endangering workers� lives and public health.

According to internal documents, Cuffari�s investigators submitted a draft plan on June 10 to investigate whether the Secret Service violated its use-of-force policies in the June 1 clearing of Lafayette Square, an abrupt move by law enforcement about 30 minutes before Trump marched through the park for a photo op. The staff noted that hundreds of protesters had been shot at with rubber bullets and sprayed with chemical irritants; 60 people had been injured.

quote:

But at a June 18 meeting to discuss possible new investigations, Cuffari said the office would not probe the Secret Service�s handling of the protests or clearing of the square, according to the two people familiar with the discussion. Instead, the inspector general suggested that Secret Service Director Jim Murray could look into the episode, they said.

Staff investigators were taken aback. Given that the Secret Service is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the president�s security for any movement he makes in public, the Secret Service�s agents and supervisors would have been directly involved in planning his walk across Lafayette Square.

The COVID piece is just the finest, purestrain denialism:

quote:

At the time, routine internal reports on the numbers of new positive coronavirus cases among DHS employees showed the number of infections among Secret Service employees had risen quickly. On Aug. 10, a special review team submitted a proposal to investigate what steps the Secret Service was taking to prevent the spread of the coronavirus among its workers.

In an Aug. 13 meeting to consider proposed investigations, Cuffari questioned the level of risk involved that the office would be scrutinizing, according to the people familiar with the discussion.

Investigators told Cuffari that if Secret Service agents and officers were spreading the coronavirus, more of them could get sick and possibly die. It would also increase the risk of exposure for the people the Secret Service protected, including the president.

Cuffari told the team they should narrow the probe, and suggested only examining how the spread of the coronavirus affected the Secret Service�s investigative work rather than its protection assignments.

But coronavirus infections in the Secret Service were falling the hardest on agents and officers working protective roles, who were required to travel around the country to secure public rallies for Trump�s campaign.

Many Secret Service agents who worked near the president opted not to wear masks in the early days of the virus�s arrival in the United States. Some members of the president�s detail urged other agents not to wear masks when they helped secure sites for presidential trips, saying the president didn�t like to see them.

In the end, the investigation was shelved, according to records and the people familiar with the decision.

Of course, with this lying piece of poo poo we've already seen that his investigations, even when they do get off the ground are lacking in.... everything.

quote:

In March of last year, Thompson, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was deeply troubled by many failures and factual flaws in an investigation by Cuffari�s office of the death of an 8-year-old boy in U.S. custody after Customs and Border Patrol agents detained him and his father at the border.

Thompson said the report inaccurately stated the cause of the child�s death, left out key details about the detention facility�s delay in treating the child and failed to examine whether the policies at the facility were followed or sufficient to prevent such a tragedy.

Thompson said �the many critical shortcomings in the work of the OIG raise significant concerns about the thoroughness of the office�s reviews as well as the willingness of the office to conduct in-depth examinations of sensitive topics.�

The Post reported last year that the number of investigations conducted under Cuffari�s watch had plummeted, noting that lawmakers from both parties were concerned. At the time, Cuffari�s office was on pace to conduct 40 investigations and audits by the end of the fiscal year that ended in September 2020, the fewest in nearly two decades. That would have represented one-fourth the productivity of the office in the final year of Barack Obama�s presidency.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 13:48

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Two of my DSA organizing meetings were canceled so that we could "process" the news. I found it ridiculous that those committees, which are almost entirely affluent white people, should need or deserve an entire day to emotionally digest this good news.

I think if you're a white person living in a city other than Minneapolis, who never met George Floyd or Derek Chauvin in your life, and the reveal of this verdict was so emotionally punishing that you needed to refrain from organizing just to process it, then you're emotionally immature in a way that inhibits your political activity. I don't know if people are actually that emotionally immature, or just overstating their need to "process" the verdict in order to appear sensitive to the plight of the oppressed. But sensitivity isn't a virtue when it keeps you from addressing serious problems.

I'm sure George Floyd's family needs some time to process the verdict and all the memories/emotions it's dredged up for them. But my DSA chapter isn't George Floyd's family, and we shouldn't pretend we are. It's emotionally unhealthy and practically obstructive.

I'm not sure if my favorite part is the heavy lifting done by "almost entirely", the accusation of virtue signaling, or the juxtaposition of yesterday's events with "serious problems" but this is a hell of a post. Maybe they should have just cancelled the meeting for everyone except the "almost entirely" affluent whites. That's more emotionally healthy and less obstructive, right? That way comrades can choose if they want to "address serious problems" or demonstrate their emotional immaturity and unsuitability for the role. But hell, I'm not in your DSA chapters so there's a chance I'm talking out of turn. Maybe you did have urgent and necessary organizing work to do to address serious problems that could not have been postponed for a day or a week without obstructive harm. loving wreckers, right?

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

The 2024 GOP primary is going to be the worst loving thing we've ever seen

We're still in silly season but it's been hilarious how much of the early hype has coalesced around DeSantis without recognizing that everyone has their knives out for him already. Twitter was making Scott Walker comparisons earlier this week but at least Walker was mostly viewed as milquetoast and inoffensive within party circles. This Politico nightmarefuel from last May is already out of date with the Gaetz fall from grace (though :lol:

at the idea he doesn't run if he isn't behind bars) but you have 3 well-funded factions within the Florida GOP that mostly have their own machinery and who positively loathe each other. Amazingly, the factions all acknowledge that their candidates are dogshit at actually running for office and doing the things you'd need to do to win a primary outside of Florida. There is no "well, if I can't win at least it'll be someone from this state". DeSantis and Scott have been engaged in a years-long slapfight and Rubio's dislike for everyone is matched by the universal dislike of him.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 14:58

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

You are, and we did, and still do.

That's great news! I'm always up for learning more about what's happening in other cities -- what was your work that was irreparably harmed by postponing last night's meeting?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If we're not doing important work, we should just stay home and play video games. If we are doing important work, which I believe we are, then we shouldn't bring it to a halt because we got the outcome we wanted in a trial in which our involvement should've been political/professional rather than personal.

I'm not calling anyone a "wrecker," I just disagree with an organizing decision because I think it highlights an unproductive and emotionally unhealthy attitude toward the verdict outcome. I don't think anyone benefits from our emotional investment, I think people benefit from our organized action. I think people are confusing the two because liberalism's individualizing influence or something, I don't know.

We could've gotten work done yesterday to prevent this poo poo from happening again, and we didn't, and our reason for not doing so indicates that we're having trouble emotionally separating ourselves from the work - or we're feeling that we shouldn't have that emotional separation - in a way that's unhealthy for us psychologically and problematic for the work.

You mentioned "almost everyone is affluent and white" -for those who aren't, would they have had to make a choice between processing the verdict in a way that wasn't either "emotionally immature, or just overstating their need to "process" the verdict in order to appear sensitive to the plight of the oppressed" and attending the organizing meeting?

You're not calling people wreckers, you just think this obstructive action was done out of immaturity or virtue signaling. Empathy is apparently a confusion wrought by liberalism. That "we got the outcome we wanted", apparently, should have removed any need to grapple with the tension that so many felt between what we knew to be the correct and legal outcome and what we had every reason to fear would be the actual outcome.

I'm in Minneapolis currently, so I'm sure yesterday hits differently for me than it does for others. That police in Ohio (at least, the ones not sent up here) shot a child to death and responded to the crowd with "blue lives matter", though, tells me that this moment was felt in many other cities. As do the marches and rallies nationwide. So I hope you can understand that when I see your post trivializing those responses, accusing those with strong feelings about state violence and racial injustice of emotional immaturity and/or virtue signalling, and your absolute confidence that your organizing work was both so important and so urgent that it needed to happen specifically last night and that the harm wrought by postponement outweighs any of the other considerations.... it raises my hackles.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 15:41

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Slowpoke! posted:

Amazing how running a failed campaign is seen as a positive.

At this point, Christie's using that statement to appeal to donors. And it's slightly less ridiculous than it seems on its face: DeSantis' electoral history is winning a safe GOP house seat for 3 cycles and then beating Andrew Gillum by 32k votes. Christie message to donors is that the one time in his political career DeSantis has been tested, he eeked out an incredibly narrow victory in Florida. Spooling that operation up to a nationwide effort is unlikely to be easy, quick, or come without wasting significant money. Read it as "If having executive experience is important to you in a candidate, your choices are me or this dumbass. I've run nationwide before and I learned lessons in that process, so I know how to put your money to the best use. DeSantis will waste your money while he learns on the job." To the extent Christie has a lane, it's as a former governor. I suspect that this attempt at differentiation will resonate with a chunk of GOP donors (especially given DeSantis' reputation and reported shortcomings), but also that it won't be enough because :lol:

Chris Christie.

"Fresh and without the stink of failure" tends to come into conflict with "Untested and unproven". Good candidates, generally those who are charismatic and great in individual/small settings with competent staff, can lean heavily into the former in a way that defangs the latter. From the politico piece I linked upthread, though:

His own staff! posted:

DeSantis loyalists acknowledge that even in 2018, in the midst of a messy primary fight, they were aware of their candidate�s higher aspirations�and the long-term work required to mold a gaffe-prone congressman with a notable lack of people skills into the national candidate he already thought he was.

�Internally on the campaign, we joked that we were working on our own type of �Manhattan Project,�� said a staffer who worked on DeSantis� campaign. �Once he became governor, we knew we would need to work on his communications skills and his retail politics. �You know, the sort of stuff you need in a diner in Iowa or New Hampshire.�

Again, his own staff posted:

But DeSantis� success with Adelson is a conspicuous exception in his fundraising. He is notorious for his poor skills tending to the run-of-the-mill millionaires who populate the national fundraising circuit. Multiple people who spoke to POLITICO said DeSantis lacks what is known in campaign parlance as �donor maintenance��knowing something about your donors, calling them on their birthdays, sending them a note when their kid graduates from college.

�We would try to tell him you need to call these people other than when you are asking them for money,� said one former campaign aide. �That is a huge maintenance problem. He is just kind of a jerk.�

Not boding well for his chances.

Space Gopher posted:

I don't think DeSantis is going to be the guy, but "everyone has their knives out for him already" doesn't mean he's doomed. Everybody in the 2016 Republican primaries went hard after Trump from the minute he rode down that escalator, and, welp

I mean, my recollection was that you saw a number of candidates going soft on Trump with the desire to pick up his supporters when he flamed out and the hope that he'd knock out their bigger rivals (Cruz, Bush, Rubio) before he did. I'm not sure how much of that is reflected in the narrative at the time though.

fool of sound posted:

Hey fishbot and paracaidas can you please take your local dsa drama argument to pms or something

noted

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 16:15

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

The Angry Bum posted:

The Democratic State Party is still trying hard to get rid of AOC after all this time.

I'd love a source on this, so I can learn more!

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 18:41

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Herstory Begins Now posted:

i don't think there's literally anything that 10 republicans agree on that you could get 50 senate dems to vote for

For what it's worth, the horror scenario is 10 republicans for a bill that 40+ senate Dems agree to and the remainder (Sanders, Warren, Brown, etc) agree to not block cloture on. Any examples of GOP intransigence prior to 2021 are a less relevant here as the context and scenario are massively different than 2008-2010 or 2011 and beyond.

Right now, any Dem reconciliation bill is essentially "as broad and sweeping as Manchin and the literal House Blue Dog Caucus will allow". Manchin's bit is telling Republicans to come to the table with a legitimate package, telling Biden and Senate Leadership to hear them out, and then voting for reconciliation as a "last resort" that was the inevitable outcome all along. The concern would be that 10 Republicans come up with an infrastructure bill that is everything Manchin likes about Biden's proposal, none of the things he's ambivalent about, refrains from adding any non-budgetary poison pills, and replacing the corporate tax increases by flipping the SALT deduction into a SALT penalty. He (along with Sinema, Klobuchar, and others of their ilk) declare it a valid offer and one they'll accept, pledging not to vote for reconciliation because there is now a legitimate path to bipartisan passage. This puts Biden and the Dems in a spot of some compromise bill with the Republicans, heavily weighted in the GOP's favor, with the centrist bloc of Dems in both chambers saying it's this negotiated bill or nothing at all.

At that point, it becomes a question of if the left flank of Senate Dems will filibuster (and the progressive caucus will defect in large enough numbers in the house to kill the bill despite a small number of GOP votes) and risk that the centrists are genuine in their threat to block any reconciliation efforts. Generally, the wisdom is that even if they won't vote for it, the Sanders and Warrens of the world will accept an insufficient-but-not-actively-harmful bill over no bill at all while Manchin, Sinema, etc are willing to accept no bill over anything that even approaches being as large as the moment calls for.

The GOP, thus far, has made it easy by putting out offers that Manchin finds unacceptable (and even if he'd prefer them, knows will never garner enough D support). I'm sure I've mentioned back in USPOL that I don't find it likely the GOP gets there on infrastructure, continued COVID relief, or other Biden spending bills. I do think there's a genuine risk they get an incremental boost to minimum wage through in a similar manner.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Will republicans message of christian nationalism and anti-cultural marxism help them sweep hawaii, the minority-majority state that has a little single republican in the state senate? I've spoken to am extremely loud transplant from texas in this waikiki bar and democrats are doomed

That's just Tulsi, but I understand your confusion.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2021 01:50

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

"Eye-popping" tax rates that are the same top rate as 1994, a corporate tax rate the same as it was in 2018, and a capital gains rate 3% higher than the rate in 1981.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1385562848454082563

I know it's not the media-crit thread, but I want to help innoculate the thread so we don't flip out next time Axios quotes "Senior Democratic Staffers" or whomever the gently caress. The most recent awful anonymously sourced item I can recall was "Senior Democratic and Republican aides � who would never let their bosses say so on the record � privately told Axios [Chauvin's] convictions have lessened pressure for change."

LT2012 is correct, the framing on this story and "eyepopping" in particular are dogshit. The headlines on this and previous similar stories as "Biden's tax-the-rich plans" are similarly awful (though I sure like the sound of them!). Even the content of the story includes another deeply questionable anonymous quote:

quote:

Democrats close to the White House believe that the amount of revenue that the IRS can collect on capital gains actually decreases past a certain point, probably in the low 30% range. That means the ultimate capital gains rate could be well below 43.4%

Who would leak to Axios? Those who are most aligned with the outlet's center-right bent and who are disappointed with internal Dem outcomes. They're crying to Axios when they get their asses kicked so that they can reopen the battle later. We saw it last year around COVID-relief as Dem staffers informed Axios that actually Pelosi is very scared of the rightwing talking points about the bill and that's why it'll be half of what was rumored (spoiler: it was much larger than rumored). We're seeing it again here. If the White House thought that it was crossing the inflection point of the Laffer curve, it'd.... not propose doing so. Instead, some dumbass(es) "close to the White House" (who is definitely not Larry Summers) lost and wants the media and Congress to think the White House has substantial wiggle room there. You're genuinely safest assuming that anything sourced to an anonymous Dem that you see in Axios has already been raised and rejected.

It is interesting to see that this is Axios' take, given polling that shows Biden's plan gets bipartisanly more popular when people learn they're paying for it by hitting the GOP's favorite people.

nine-gear crow posted:

turning a big dial taht says "Shitposts" on it and constantly looking back at the mods for approval like a contestant on the price is right

The threadwinner is whoever comes closest to the shitpost threshold without going over, so this checks out.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2021 02:39

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1386406515905605633

For the whole tempest in the teapot we saw when the plan was announced, Biden's plan to withdraw will probably be the most popular action of his presidency? These are staggering numbers.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2021 23:01

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Kalit posted:

drat. Do you know if the Portland's police chief is welcome of the DoJ investigation? Our mayor and police chief both are, so I'm hoping it'll be more welcoming of critiques/implementing changes...

Frey and Arradondo, like Lisa Bender, welcome the DOJ's investigation and inevitable consent decree because it removes them from any responsibility for the path forward. "I hear you, but our hands are tied. Blame the feds/judge/monitor", they'll be able to say when there are complaints that change isn't coming fast enough and when there are complaints that the reforms keep cops from dealing with "those people".

It's worth remembering that part of Frey getting in was the MPD loudly whining through the press and in many public interactions that downtown had become unsafe because they couldn't arrest, hold, and release Black Minnesotans for ~~precrime~~ loitering and spitting. Literally, "Hodges won't let us do our jobs". It's part of a pattern of MPD behavior, as noted by councilmember Fletcher here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904
I'm pessimistic that the council's efforts for reform and/or abolition would have gone anywhere, so I think Justice coming in will be beneficial compared to what would have otherwise occurred. But it's a boon to the worst people in Minneapolis politics.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2021 02:14

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1386849789023821831

NRAF seems to be a joint effort of OFA and Holder's NDRC. I'm curious to see if any of these efforts will work!

# ¿ Apr 27, 2021 02:28

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I don't think Manchin is pissed about that. His current complaint is that he wants the corporate tax rate to be a little bit lower than the Biden proposal. He's arguing that the Biden proposal takes us up to 28%, but it cuts out a lot of deductions and institutes an alternative minimum tax, so companies either pay the minimum tax rate or what they owe - whichever s higher. Manchin says that this means the effective rate will actually be going up a lot higher than the top-line rate and lowering the top-line rate would even it out to bring the effective tax rate down to where it was before the Trump tax cut.

Also, a bunch of hopes that they can find bipartisan solutions.

Book tax!

Also a crosspost from the Chauvin Trial Thread since I'm sure a number of folks unbookmarked it after the verdict and during the subsequent derail:

Paracaidas posted:

One of the jurors did an interview with CBS this morning. A few notes for those who can't watch:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1387379305068572677

Tobin and the MMA fighter were the most impactful witnesses to him, made it all but impossible for the defense to come back.

A few jurors were disappointed Chauvin didn't testify.

"We were just stressed about just the simple fact that everyday we had to come in and watch a Black man die. That alone is stressful."

Started with manslaughter and worked their way up

Preliminary manslaughter vote was 11-1. Holdout was wondering about a few words in the instructions. Came to consensus in 40 minutes and moved on to the next one.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2021 13:48

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Further crossposting, this time from polliwanks (or whatever its official name is):

Paracaidas posted:

From YouGov and the Economist, Biden Job Approval rates by state:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1387442493336264706

Including error bars:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1387445438463287300
Looking forward to Senate races: lightly better news than I think the GOP'd have expected this early from Arizona, Ohio, and North Carolina but I think they were hoping for better on Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennslyvania, and Georgia.

Dems have potentially tough holds in CO, GA, AZ, NH, and NV (though AZ and GA are the only two I see as risky short of a wave).

GOP is trying to hold NC, OH, and PA despite retiring incumbents, and WI and FL with actual incumbents. It's difficult trying to predict where things will be as we "get back to normal" after COVID and who people will credit for the pretty dramatic lifestyle change that entails, but I think the range of plausible outcomes stretches from R+5 (you're looking at IL, CT, or OR to go any further) to D+6 (adding Iowa to the states above is a stretch, but less so than MO, NE, or IN).

Recommend adding that to your bookmarks as we get closer and closer to legitimate validated-voter 2020 postmortems from the CCES. I'm already regretting the effort post I'll make as that becomes available.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2021 18:00

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

zoux posted:

I think Powell is being kind of sarcastic and implying that if they want to fill positions they need to increase wages.

Definitely my read as well, given how he's been all year in public statements and congressional testimony. They've been bitching about this since literally before CARES and so far as I know it's the first time McConnell has actually pissed off most of his caucus, letting Mnuchin negotiate with Pelosi without him.

I don't recall having heard :qq:

from lovely senate Dems about businesses not being able to afford to hire workers but that's a definite rhetorical red flag if it pops up from them.

Eta:

Jaxyon posted:

Maybe but a bunch of news is going to play it straight and talk about this as if it's a mystery.

Good? I'd rather the news stories be "Small business owners say they can't afford to hire workers, Fed says it sees no indication of labor shortage" than simply "Small business owners say they can't afford to hire workers".

All bankers are bastards etc, but a fed chair who slaps down inflation hawks, announces he won't stymie the recovery by tightening, reiterates that it's riskier to undershoot than overshoot, and pushes back on crocodile tears meant to increase downward pressure on wages is a nice change and better than my low expectations

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 28, 2021

# ¿ Apr 28, 2021 20:26

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

I know that "Boebert did something awful" isn't really news and I try not to post them unless it's something particularly egregious...

https://mobile.twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1387567399701000194

This is grotesque and I can't believe her fellow Republicans are putting up with it.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 01:45

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Clarste posted:

I assumed it was the standard joke about Ted Cruz being a disgusting inhuman thing.

Thought the bit was clear enough, maybe not? :shrug:

McCarthy is still on the "Biden stealing your burgers". Amazing that they haven't found a real message yet.

Eta:

Its Happening! posted:

poo poo, you're right. Also, John Wick would've been a much better movie if he had just called the cops and waited patiently for 101 minutes until they arrived to file a report. Similarly I think pursuing justice should only be done if it is extremely convenient and by the books, even in spite of blatant abuse.

Your preferred outcome would have taken literally every minute as long, just instead of Minnesota holding Chauvin accountable anf the feds piling on, it'd have been Chauvin getting off and the feds cinematically saving the day.

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 29, 2021

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 04:49

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Kraftwerk posted:

My view here is that McCarthy is still on "Biden stealing your burgers" because people are terrified and this is an issue that will mobilize them to vote Republican. As absurd as this sounds to us, never forget we live in our own self isolated media and social bubble that has zero overlap with 79 million voters who will pull the lever for an R candidate in 2022. It is a real message, you're just not in contact with the people who are triggered by it. A good chunk of Americans do not want to see their lifestyles impacted or changed in any way by government legislation. You just have to play to their darkest fears.

It's April of 2021. I promise you'll have more opportunities to :arzy: about GOP messaging prior to November 2022 (or 2024!) and they'll come up with something more worth your angst "Biden stealing your burgers!".

This is absolutely not mobilizing someone to vote 18 months from now. It's McCarthy flailing (because he's inept) and chasing after the newest shiny object that picked up steam in the RWM ecosystem.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 05:43

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Feds getting around to stacking the charges on the Whitmer kidnapping crew, finally hitting 3 of them with the "conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction" charge that seemed inevitable given the plan to blow up the bridge and delay police and first responders.

quote:

The kidnapping plot never came to fruition, as Fox, 40, Croft, 45, and other extremist group members were arrested and charged in October. Now, the pair and one other defendant, Daniel Harris, 23, face new charges, including conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and federal firearm violations, in the newly detailed scheme to explode the bridge.

As always, one should never trust the feds and their tactics of creating and encouraging "plots" they then take victory laps for stopping. Also, one can make the point about abusive fed tactics without apologia for white supremacist terrorists. For instance, under no circumstances should you find yourself claiming all evidence points to notracist motivations for the confederate flag toting Michigan militia of Boogs, three-percenters, and "my life matters" morons who offer store owners and statues "protection" from BLM.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 14:29

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Did we ever find out if this plot was 100% the usual fbi strategy of finding some 90-IQ morons and getting them whipped up about committing a crime by feeding them every detail of the crime first?

For what it's worth, not even the defense has claimed that. The furthest they've gotten is that "one of the most active leaders" of the plot was the militia member who went to the FBI (distinct from an undercover plant). Not the leader of the plot. Not the most active member. Not the one pushing the hardest. Just, y'know, of the 5 he was "one of the most active leaders".

From what I've seen, everything we have available to us (including the defense's pretrial arguments) shows that this was "Militia wants to kidnap the Governor and blow up a bridge, and is already stocking up and training to do so. Keep track of this, wrap them up when we have enough for a life sentence, and make sure if they try to buy anything they do it from us." Which is distinct from the other examples mentioned in the link above and the abusive history you reference, which are typically "Young Muslim says he hates America, let's see if we can get him to talk about something federal and then push him to take action and buy from us"

Again, ACAB includes the Feds and you shouldn't take what they have to say at face value. Since not even the defense alleges that this case fits that usual strategy, I'm a bit skeptical that it's those tricks again. In the meantime- worth remembering that these arrests came in the month leading into the election, disrupting a plot against a high profile Trump enemy, with tremendous institutional pressure to minimize right wing extremism and white supremacist terror.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 14:59

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1388100336095830016

Some interesting context, both for the unusual level of support Biden's plans have had from lovely Dems and the GOP's inability to find attacks that resonate. I'd mostly chalked the latter up to a decade of easy targets in Obama and Clinton breeding laziness but this suggests that their struggles may run deeper.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2021 13:54

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Rea posted:

I don't know much about NLRB policy or how unions are officially formed or how these elections are conducted, what would be the outcome of the Amazon unionization vote being overturned here?

The most likely outcome would be forcing a revote. However, per Bezos' own outlet they also have the ability to ignore the tainted election and certify the union anyway.

Which strikes me as extremely unlikely but would trigger a biblical flood of rightwing angst

# ¿ Apr 30, 2021 14:29

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/lawfareblog/status/1388128236396290057

DeepSlate on pattern or practice investigations (consent decree precursors), which is actually a pretty solid primer. A few highlights from a pretty lengthy piece:

quote:

What Are Pattern-or-Practice Investigations, and Why Do They Exist?

The Justice Department describes pattern-or-practice reviews as one of the department�s �central tools for accomplishing police reform, restoring police-community trust, and strengthening officer and public safety.� Congress, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, gave the Justice Department the authority to conduct pattern-or-practice investigations pursuant to 42 U.S.C.� 14141, but the authority has since migrated to 34 U.S.C. � 12601.

The provision passed after the Rodney King police beating in 1991, which highlighted what Stephen Rushin characterizes as �the inadequacy � of traditional misconduct regulations� and the need for greater federal involvement in local police reform. Before the legislation passed, the executive branch had limited options to target problem local policing. The department could pursue criminal charges against individual officers or hope that private citizens could achieve redress through civil litigation�but these methods are limited as tools to force department-wide change. The statute that created pattern-or-practice investigations also birthed a cause of action that helps the government fill that void.

The last bit is crucial. As the piece discusses a bit, criminal charges (as typically structured) are an unhelpful tool in trying to reform entire departments. A bad apple fix for an already spoiled barrel. That's without taking into account the difficulty of actually securing an indictment in the first place, to say nothing of a conviction.

Another typical option is civil litigation by private citizens. QI, as shaped by the courts, gives officers little reason to believe they'll ever personally face financial consequences. This broadens out at a departmental level given city funding and expanding police budgets---the cost of police misconduct settlements is literally spread onto all city residents and the department itself does not bear most of that burden. But back to the bolded bit:

quote:

Litigants in federal court aren�t limited to suing for damages�they can also bring suit to get a court to bind a party to stop or change their behavior. But before the 1994 bill passed, neither private litigants nor the Justice Department had success in getting courts to directly compel entire police departments to change their behavior. As Rushin notes, courts held that without a �clear� statute-made cause of action, plaintiffs didn�t have standing to sue for anything other than monetary damages. In one case, this thwarted a private litigant whom a Los Angeles police officer held in a chokehold from trying to get a court to spell out obligations for the whole department; in another, it blocked the Justice Department from asking a judge to enjoin the Philadelphia Police Department to stop violating the constitutional rights of the city�s residents. In the Philadelphia case, the judge wrote in his dismissal order that �to recognize standing in this case would be to vest an excessive and dangerous degree of power in the hands of the Attorney General.� The appeals court was similarly unmoved by an appeal from the Justice Department.

Congress:DongloverGood.gif

quote:

Pattern-or-practice investigations fill this gap. Under 34 U.S.C. � 12601, the Justice Department can bring civil suits against entire departments in order to compel police departments to fix problems. The threat of litigation is almost always enough to get the offending jurisdiction in question to agree to a binding settlement with the Justice Department, instead of taking its chances in court

There's so much more detail on the history and process at the link. Worth checking out!

# ¿ Apr 30, 2021 15:10

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Peter_Wehner/status/1388595696484372485

quote:

Sen. Mitt Romney was lustily booed by the more than 2,100 Republican delegates who packed into the Maverik Center on Saturday for the party�s state convention.

�Aren�t you embarrassed?� said Romney trying to deflect the chorus of catcalls that greeted him as he took the stage.

�I�m a man who says what he means, and you know I was not a fan of our last president�s character issues,� said Romney as delegates attempted to shout him down. Accusations that Romney was a �traitor� or �communist� flew from the crowd like so many poison darts.

The cacophony of disapproval only ended after outgoing party chair Derek Brown scolded delegates to �show respect� for Romney.

�You can boo all you like,� said Romney. �I�ve been a Republican all of my life. My dad was the governor of Michigan and I was the Republican nominee for president in 2012.�

The schism is at the point where it's hitting Romney from delegates in UTAH.

It's not that it's impossible to come back from this or that the GOP is dead or anything. It's that this won't heal magically on its own, and there's no indication that Biden can provide the unifying hatred that Clinton and Obama did.

I have no idea how you draw new maps with this level of trainwreck within the party, particularly for suburb/exurb districts and exurb/rural districts. I'm sure the geniuses that haven't figured out their messaging against Biden's spending and corporate taxation have it under control though. I mean, they met the Tea Party's rise by clearing a path for Romney and figured 2016 would be Rubio v Bush, they've got this.

In Dem Disarray news for balance, yesterday was a frabjous day. I may have missed it here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/burgessev/status/1388172408167747584
One of the House's worst Dems, and one who seemed likely for a meaningful leadership role if the New Dems won after Pelosi's departure. :fuckoff:

and let's all celebrate her giving it up instead of angling for another chance to whiten party infrastructure (there are many stories of her time at the DCCC) and elect Trumpish Dems in Trumper districts.

Eta:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gopTODD/status/1388613930239414272
2/3 of the party delegates stuck around to hash out whether or not Romney deserved mean words. Romney. In Utah.

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 2, 2021

# ¿ May 2, 2021 00:13

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1388840774289149962

Weigel and Sykes both discussing the differences in grassroots and backbench GOP response from 2009-2010 to today. I'd (again) suggest that nobody overextend on conclusions-the lack of an astroturfed Tea Party successor so far doesn't mean that there isn't one coming or that the deficit hawks have lost the party and it's now Dem Neoliberalism vs GOP populism or whatever the gently caress. Just something to think about and consider if you're of the belief that 2022 will be guided by 2010, or that Dem success in 2018 spells doom for their majority next year.

At this stage, I have to imagine the GOP would settle for recreating the energy and momentum of their pro-Covid movement. Instead they've got McCarthy responding to a Biden address with the burger ban and Ben Shapiro buying a wood. At this stage, Indivisible was already being blamed by congressional republicans for loving up the Obamacare repeal and we were nearly 3 months past Santelli's tea party stunt.

# ¿ May 2, 2021 14:40

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

FizFashizzle posted:

Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere.

From the polling and strategy thread:

vyelkin posted:

That poll includes these questions:

We'll see if these figures keep holding up over time, but as things stand right now it's still very much Donald Trump's party.

I think this is a large part of the issue for the GOP. There's still a tremendous amount of energy focused on a belief that the old guy is the legitimate party head and president instead of opposition to the new guy and congress. For all the "why doesn't she just go away?" :qq:

ing over Hillary, Dem leadership wasn't publicly spatting over whether she should be kingmaker, special election candidates weren't touting their pro-Clinton bonafides and not even the most distorted Greenwaldian caricature of the Russia investigation was "Phase 3: President Clinton".

McCarthy is desperately trying to smooth over any differences or conflict between "Supporter of Donald Trump" and "Supporter of the Republican Party". We saw how well that's been working at the Utah convention yesterday.

FizFashizzle posted:

But the other part thinks it would have happened by now.

It's totally possible we'll see it form around infrastructure because COVID-relief was bad optics to go all in against or something. But the deficit messaging has flopped and the tax increase messaging has only improved support for the infrastructure proposal. Could be whatever policing legislation passes the House, but I'm skeptical.

For what it's worth, I have some of the similar "what's brewing?" concern, especially for whenever all but the no hopers stop relitigating 2020. Still, that it's this delayed and even official opposition is so scattered should give pause to anyone with an inevitable red wave narrative.

Kraftwerk posted:

I would like to see Biden succeed so much that it completely repudiates the Republican Party as it currently exist leaving no political room to the right of the democrats.

Thus we get some modern great realignment where the GOP after abandoning fascism decides to become a socialist party and the Democrats are once more conservative with the topic of social issues firmly solved in between them.

The ~~strasser~~Stollerite manifesto right here! Economic populism and socialism will come from the capital worshipping bigots because apparently that's more likely than Dems (Bad!) doing it.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

I prefer the comedy answer. Republicans incompetence at managing covid, basic shite house staffing etc means that they are now simply incapable of organizing anything like that

I mean, according to actual House Republicans this was the biggest issue with the Obamacare repeal and you heard similar rumblings about the response to HEROES. I'm morbidly curious about the alternate timeline where they kept the trifecta and basically have to try and pass covid relief via reconciliation and without Dem help in crafting the bill.

You know, in whichever of those timelines where the result is legislative bungling, not fashy power grabs.

# ¿ May 2, 2021 15:35

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Sedisp posted:

Being possibly wrong doesn't make your point racist.

No, but omitting the following sentence because it contradicts the racist rear end point you were trying to cite it to prove sure does!

In other news about racist pieces of poo poo, looks like they're ramping up to give Liz the boot.
https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1389568635031724038

They'll paper over this split just fine though, I'm sure. Parties are notoriously easy to reconcile midpurge.

# ¿ May 4, 2021 14:20

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

zoux posted:

This might be a problem for the GOP if there was actually a constituency behind Liz Cheney, but she represents how much of her caucus? Maybe a quarter?

I mean, one generally doesn't rise to #3 in leadership without some actual backing. For reference: Her counterpart on the Dem side is Jeffries, presumptive frontrunner to replace Pelosi (previously: Crowley and Becerra).

Mind you, even if you're right and it's "maybe a quarter of the caucus", that still represents a major split and there's no particular indication that McCarthy has enough support to lead without that 25%. I mean, or the capability to lead with it.

Sedisp posted:

Love to watch a dude kramer into a discussion and not even be able to figure out who said what.

I'm well aware that shrecknet's the one who made false claim and misrepresented his source that contradicts his dumbass point.

I'm commenting that it's weird as gently caress to give the benefit of the doubt to the poster who tried to lie to back up their racist bullshit.

Would you prefer the thread refer to such mendacity as "racially charged"?

# ¿ May 4, 2021 14:49

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

FizFashizzle posted:

I dunno, I think at this point in the house GOP whatever cream there is is going to rise to the top. I had mentioned this the other day that there just aren't that many people in the House GOP that can like....read.

Liz is smart in a cynical, evil kind of way and obviously has family ties to some serious GOP dark donor money. Plus she'll never lose that seat and anyone stupid enough to primary her would probably end up in a ditch after shooting themselves in the back of the head multiple times.

, which is why it's a notable sign of disarray that McCarthy seems prepped to give in to the demands to knock her off his leadership team for insufficient trumpiness.

There are ways to do this artfully, that may actually help in 2022, but zero loving confidence in McCarthy to accomplish it.

zoux posted:

She's been caucus chair since '19, and that quarter of the caucus that supports her (or whatever it is) is continually shrinking. She's going to be standing on her own by the end of this.

And where do those congresscritters and the voters who support them go? Are those voters equally distributed across purple districts or are they concentrated and disproportionately the suburban highpropensity voters that formed the backbone of the 2012 gerrymander? How much more challenging does it make drawing maps if even 25% of that 25% stay home next year?

To reiterate since the discussion seems to spiral there otherwise: I'm not predicting the death of the GOP or a permanent (or "durable") Dem majority. But publicly feuding with Liz Cheney before booting her for being too centrist and insufficiently Trumploving is a risky response to the current GOP internal strife. It's possible they'd replace her in leadership with someone equally as exciting to the donors and wing that would prefer a return to the Romney/Bush era who is less publicly antagonistic to Trump and this is all kayfabe to raise her profile and mollify the Trumpers without anything changing.

There's just nothing to indicate they're smart enough to pull that off.

# ¿ May 4, 2021 16:08

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Judakel posted:

It is a dumb plan, but it won't happen because the GOP has party discipline. Cheney will just get a job on MSNBC or something.

(Edit:replacing tweet link with direct link)
Checking in on the GOP's assessment of their party discipline:

quote:

�He very frequently reminds us that we�re not as tough as [Democrats] are, that they play more for keeps, that they stick together better,� said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). �Part of what makes us conservative is our independence, so that is our strength philosophically but sometimes it can be a weakness.�

zoux posted:

Again, mostly falls under Murc's Law, that in the discourse, only Democrats have agency

Hadn't heard this before but it's fantastic and rings true.

Judakel posted:

I am including that in the points about the second referendum insistence within Labour's moderate wing. If the alternative is a party that insists a candidate run back a tedious referendum that people want to move past, I would expect similar results anywhere.

Cannot believe Corbyn allowed him to be hamstrung by... pushing a position backed by 72% of his party.

"Undone by the moderates' insistence on a second referendum," I yelp, about a policy opposed by only 18% of Labour voters polled.

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 03:18 on May 6, 2021

# ¿ May 6, 2021 01:35

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Judakel posted:

With regards to Corbyn: Sounds like Labour needed that 18%, huh?

...as opposed to the 72%?

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

I mean an even larger percentage of Democratic voters support M4A in polls but we're still told it's actually savvy politicking for the party to fight it

Both the Public Option and MFA poll quite well! When forced to choose, we see where the preference lies:

Which isn't surprising, given that each time it's asked the majority of Dems seem to think MFA is the public option (though that's slowly changing RE insurance):

Judakel posted:

He is just yelping that a big chunk of the Labour party membership supporting a second referendum must mean it was both largely popular outside of the moderate Labour membership and that it would've been electoral suicide not to run on it for fear of losing too much of the moderate vote. Much like not supporting M4A doesn't really cost Democrats progressive votes, not supporting a second referendum is unlikely to have cost Corbyn many votes from the moderates; many moderates were already not going to vote for him because of manufactured views or mishandled campaigning.

I'm actually quite happy to explain myself! Just wanted to make sure anyone reading your explanation of Corbyn's loss in 2019 was aware that the position "moderates" apparently forced him into was favored by the overwhelming majority of the party.

As Greyjoy noted, sourcing can be helpful for understanding the fuller context!

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Is the percentage of Democratic voters who support a public option but oppose M4A a significant constituency?

Last I saw was Feb 2020, where 12% favored MFA and opposed a Public Option, vs 20% preferring the Public Option and opposing MFA. 62% like em both!

YMMV if either is "significant"

# ¿ May 6, 2021 02:17

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Judakel posted:

Why are you putting moderates in quotation marks like 72% couldn't be moderates? The overwhelming majority of the party is moderate and the overwhelming majority of the party was wrong to force it! Pretty simple!

A few reasons- Primarily that it's your wording and the idea that opposing Lexiteer/KIPper alliance to leave the EU is inherently moderate is absolute horseshit. Another is that your use of the term conflates the overwhelming majority of supporters (including, it would stand to reason, the bulk of those who elevated him to leadership in the first place unless they'd already cut bait by early 2019) with the party staff who actively sabotaged efforts in 2017. Using "moderate" to describe both camps seems to suggest that the 72% of supporters who backed a second referendum would have, like the saboteurs and wreckers, preferred a Tory PM to Corbyn.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I maintain that Corbyn would have been a perfectly serviceable, and quite possibly excellent, left Labour leader if Brexit were not an issue.

Unfortunately, it was and is the most important issue for the rest of the UK's existence (eighteen months or so)

It doesn't help that his shambolic Brexit policy was positively Dem-like in ensuring that nobody would feel satisfied with its outcome, beginning with
a three line whip to threaten anyone who didn't join with May and the Tories to invoke Article 50

For those unfamiliar with three line whips:

Parliament traditions are bonkers everywhere posted:

It might sound technical, but a three-line whip means the instruction on how to vote is literally underlined three times to emphasise its importance, as you would a particularly crucial item on a shopping list.

While MPs are not compelled to vote with the party for a single or two-line whip, a three-line whip means they are expected to attend the vote and toe the party line.

Permission to miss a three-line whip vote is granted only in serious circumstances and unapproved absence or a failure to vote with the party is seen as a grave offence.

What happens if an MP defies a three-line whip?
It is up to the party leader to decide whether to punish an MP, who can be dismissed from a minister or shadow minister position or even be expelled from the party.

Kicking your tenure off by doing all in your power to force to your fellow MPs to join in such :decorum:

minded bipartisanship, though, is a good way to defang anyone coming at you from your left by advocating for the positions preferred by the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters.

Eta:

TulliusCicero posted:

Do they even have Subpoena power? They effectively control nothing

Also at subpoenas for Obama officials. "NEVER LET OUR BASE FORGET THERE WAS A BLACK GUY WE DIDN'T LIKE!"

It's been 5 loving years. Get some new material.

Check the timestamp. I'll fix the OP, it was just the readily available link I had to the story... from last year. Just showing that the GOP's own senators don't see themselves as disciplined, unified, or willing to get into tough fights as the Dems

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 03:16 on May 6, 2021

# ¿ May 6, 2021 03:13

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

^^all good, there was no reason to expect it to be anything other than a recent story. Poor choice on my part, rectified!

CommieGIR posted:

And its hilarious because all their "Hearings" have done nothing, because there's nothing to find. Its just red meat for their voters. Just like Trump saying he'd jail Hillary.

I love that their political plans are just a bunch of kangaroo hearings.

In fairness, media coverage also tends to treat repeated accusations of misconduct/investigations into misconduct as evidence of misconduct, as we can see in Hillary and, as has been noted across the last few pages, Corbyn.

STAC Goat posted:

Yeah, but did he pull the trigger? That's what makes a real Republican.

"Ready, aim, what's the third one, there? Let's see...The third one. I can't. Oops."

# ¿ May 6, 2021 03:22

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Vorik posted:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1390659712597860353?s=21

I guess we�ll see whether having trump�s support or not is the ultimate deciding factor for Repub candidates. Definitely a good opportunity for a Democrat.

Hi, yes, please be cautious when sharing The Hill.

quote:

Vernon Jones is closing the gap with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in the nascent Republican gubernatorial primary ahead of next year's elections, according to polling obtained by The Hill.

An internal poll commissioned by Jones�s campaign and conducted by the GOP firm Remington Research Group shows Kemp with a narrow 39 percent to 35 percent lead over Jones among likely Republican primary voters, putting him just slightly outside the survey�s 3 percentage point margin of error.

This, if anything, undersells it. Forces a head-to-head between a known candidate and a mostly unknown one and doesn't try to push leaners so the actual breakdown is 39-35-26. Also, it's a straightup push poll.

totally legitimate polling! posted:

I will now read you two brief statements you may hear during the 2022 Republican Primary Election. Please indicate, after hearing each statement, if the information makes you more or less likely to vote for Brian Kemp.

Q: Brian Kemp sided with Stacey Abrams and refused to investigate the 2020 presidential election results.
More likely: 18%
Less likely: 57%
No difference: 25%

Q: Donald Trump has openly called on someone to primary Brian Kemp in the 2022 Republican Primary for Governor. Donald Trump knows Brian Kemp cannot be trusted.
More likely: 19%
Less likely: 54%
No difference: 27%

now sometimes, in a survey like this, people change their minds. I will read you the original ballot question again

ETA: For clarity -- What this poll is saying is that Republican voters, when presented with a choice between Abrams-loving Trumphater poopyhead Brian Kemp and Trump loving patriot Vernon Jones, they still prefer Kemp.

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 7, 2021

# ¿ May 7, 2021 15:26

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Kraftwerk posted:

Is there an actual evidence that �labour shortages� in states are caused by generous unemployment benefits?
This seems like the welfare queens argument all over again.

Not particularly, at least by preliminary measures. For reference, Dube is one of the leading minwage experts and is, um, not a rightwinger.
https://mobile.twitter.com/arindube/status/1381360264860286977
https://mobile.twitter.com/arindube/status/1381360267712430082
https://mobile.twitter.com/arindube/status/1381360273966108674
https://mobile.twitter.com/arindube/status/1381360279666241544

# ¿ May 8, 2021 15:26

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Cheney's press offensive continues seems as if she's betting on Trump imploding and her getting to rebuild from the ashes.

Interestingly, even internal polling seems to suggest she may be on to something. Though, by her telling, the party is actively hiding the risks of embracing Trump.

quote:

When staff from the National Republican Congressional Committee rose to explain the party�s latest polling in core battleground districts, they left out a key finding about Trump�s weakness, declining to divulge the information even when directly questioned about Trump�s support by a member of Congress, according to two people familiar with what transpired.

Trump�s unfavorable ratings were 15 points higher than his favorable ones in the core districts, according to the full polling results, which were later obtained by The Washington Post. Nearly twice as many voters had a strongly unfavorable view of the former president as had a strongly favorable one.

Cheney was alarmed, she later told others, in part because Republican campaign officials had also left out bad Trump polling news at a March retreat for ranking committee chairs. Both instances, she concluded, demonstrated that party leadership was willing to hide information from their own members to avoid the truth about Trump and the possible damage he could do to Republican House members, even though the NRCC denied any such agenda.

Take with all the grains of all the salt, obviously.

# ¿ May 8, 2021 17:29

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Fallom posted:

Have goons gone so far down the rabbit hole of �Americans only like sit down restaurants because they get to treat people like slaves� that they�re starting to claim that only Americans sit down in restaurants

Due to the uniquely American institution of slavery, the nation emphasizes service in its dining experience. Europeans, on the other hand, prefer takeout in a nod to their extractive colonial history :hist101:

They go so far as to have relabeled it as "take away" which really gives up the game.

# ¿ May 9, 2021 01:49

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Fuller coming in hot this morning:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1391391783989485584

quote:

If you�re reading this after the midterm elections, it�s either because Democrats were right that they could buck the historical trends and keep their House majority�or it�s because they were spectacularly wrong

I'll be Frankensteining the article a bit, but we have why Maloney's confident:

quote:

�I got it,� Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The Daily Beast this week during a phone interview. �There�s a precedent that says you lose a couple of seats. But what is clear to me is that the Republicans think there�s nothing about their brand they need to change in swing districts, and I just think they�re wrong about that.�
[...]
But Democrats think a booming economy, a popular president, and a competent government response to coronavirus could blunt all of those potential losses, perhaps even cause Democrats to gain seats. And Maloney sees Republicans making some major tactical mistakes.

�Doubling down on Trump without Trump, which is an even more toxic and malignant form of conspiracy theories and white supremacy, is just a dumb strategy in swing districts,� Maloney said. �But I think they�re so confident in the precedent that they forgot to bring a plan and they forgot to bring any policies that might justify winning back the majority.�

In contrast, Maloney and other Democratic strategists say Democrats have a winning message on the economy, which they believe will be humming come the midterm elections. (Maloney theorized that it�d be growing at 7 percent.) And Democratic strategists noted that Republicans may have made a misstep on the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, allowing it to pass without a single GOP vote
[...]
Democrats just had their best off-year fundraising for the first quarter ever. The DCCC raised $15.6 million in March alone, and Democratic frontliners�the most vulnerable members�have already raised more than $20 million, ending the first quarter with more than $48 million cash on hand.

And the 54-year-old Maloney said recruiting candidates had been going well, due in part to the frustration some Democrats felt watching the Capitol be sacked by insurrectionists.
[...]
And Lee noted that there was a clear narrative developing, on the economy and on COVID, where Republicans were positioning themselves as �part of the problem� and �against the solution.�

�It�s the combination of Trump and the Trump era, the insurrection, and the opposition to the rescue plan that has left them underwater by nearly 20 points,� Lee said of the GOP approval rating. �In elections that are more and more nationalized, especially in the House, a lot of voters will be making a choice between two parties as much as they�re making a choice between two candidates.�

Other Democratic strategists noted that they�ve had success tying Republicans to the most extreme factions of the party, such as QAnon, insurrectionists, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). And they didn�t see much risk in overplaying their hand by, say, trying to tie those elements of the party to more moderate and vulnerable members like Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

As one Democratic strategist noted, even the most moderate Republicans won�t speak out against whatever controversy Taylor Greene is kicking up day-to-day.

And then, of course, there is the latest GOP controversy surrounding No. 3 House Republican Liz Cheney. Strategists said this would further cement the Republican brand and make it easier to show in those suburban, affluent, and educated districts that Democrats turned blue in 2018 that this isn�t your father�s GOP.

�House Republicans are entrenched in their own infighting, choosing to shamelessly oust Liz Cheney for telling the truth about the results of the presidential election while ushering in political opportunist Elise Stefanik, who peddles dangerous conspiracies about the results of the election for her own political gain,� Maloney said.

DCCC spokesperson Helen Kalla further went after Stefanik and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for showing what Republicans really stand for.

"Elise Stefanik�s evolution from refusing to even say Trump�s name to becoming one of his staunchest defenders shows that pushing the Big Lie is a prerequisite for membership in today�s GOP,� Kalla said. �McCarthy and House Republicans are making their message clear�lie to the American people or get out of the way for someone who will.�

The GOP counter argument:

quote:

For the record, the National Republican Congressional Committee sees it going very differently. They think Democrats are putting forth an agenda that Americans will enthusiastically reject. And they suggested that Democrats weren�t taking the historical trends nearly seriously enough, noting that Republicans still lost seats with a relatively strong economy in 2018.

"If the clowns at the DCCC don't see how much trouble they are in, they are just as delusional now as they were last cycle,� NRCC communications director Michael McAdams said in a statement to The Daily Beast. �Sean Patrick Maloney's tenure as DCCC Chairman has been an unmitigated disaster and House Democrats have embraced a toxic socialist agenda that wants to raise taxes, defund the police and open our borders.�
[...]
The NRCC was also more than happy to point to the Texas special election as a failure for Maloney�as well as the legal challenges Democrats funded to the tune of $1.4 million trying to litigate a seat in Iowa that was decided by six votes.

�Democrats have fallen on their face at every turn this cycle,� McAdams, the NRCC spokesman, said.
[...]
Still, Republicans point to their strong reputation on the economy. And they believe that the potent culture issues, combined with the strong historical trends, will propel Republicans to the majority. Not a single GOP incumbent, after all, lost their House seat in 2020, despite Democrats winning the White House and believing they�d pick up an additional dozen districts.

And a final retort from Maloney:

quote:

And yet Maloney has an answer for that, too. He said the smaller battlefield to defend, combined with the historical trend already being bucked in 2020 with Democratic losses, could lead to pickups for his party. But he acknowledges that the game plan does ride on a strong economy.

�If the economy succeeds and people feel it, then just think about it,� Maloney said. �Their argument depends on either deceiving people about the president and the Democrats� success, or trying to talk it down in a way, and I just think that�s a mistake.�

My thoughts: First off, thank gently caress it's not Bustos because honestly I wouldn't be able to take whatever messaging she'd have pushed about post-1/6 "unity". Secondly, I've been intensely skeptical of the argument that Tip doing well against Reagan and Dems pulling a huge wave in 2018 means that they're fighting an uphill battle in 2022 and I'm glad that even a mediocrity like Maloney refuses to accept it as predestined. Finally, that Dems lost some seats in 2022 and Trump not being on the ballot next year makes me wonder if Maloney is on to something. Did the GOP actually find its floor in the house in 2020 (with zero incumbent losses)? Or did they overperform and save seats because of the name atop the ticket? Conventional wisdom would tell you the former (they lost, after all) but that's not the story we've seen in elections without Trump.

# ¿ May 9, 2021 15:42

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Grouchio posted:

Either way, we'll know how things stand when we see the margins of the NM-01 election on June 1st. (18+% good, <15% bad)

This is extremely not true.

"We'll know how 2022 stands based on this special election. It's good if Dems match their margins (irrespective of turnout) in normal elections in this special election and bad if they fall short" is assigning WAY too much weight to the special election for "what will happen in this district in 2022?", trying to apply that nationwide is flatly ludicrous.

The internet and punditry and the news is incentivized to drive that This Matters, but that doesn't make it true. Talk this out: What is the lesson we learn for 2016 R->2018 D ->2020 R seats in November of 2022 from a special election in June of 2021 of a seat the Ds have held comfortably for a decade? What do we learn about the odds of Bustos" replacement in an open seat in Trump territory from a special election in a reliably Dem district?

"I would feel more comfortable if the Dem at least matches Haaland's 2020 margin, and less comfortable if they don't" is fine. Trying to assign greater meaning than your own temporary comfort to the results does a disservice to yourself and other readers.

Mooseontheloose posted:

One thing I am worried about is the reliance on fundraising meaning you are going to win. Obviously fundraising is important but at some point there is a plateau at what it can actually do. And tv ads are less important than they once were. I think the better(ish) figure is low dollar donations, especially in district.

And if this is all they have to lean on in May of 2022 for metrics, I'd be more concerned. As it stands, "our most vulnerable incumbents have a shitload of money already" is a positive sign, if only because it opens the possibility for a strategy beyond a simple blue wall. Which is important if you believe some of the GOP 2020 flips will be at risk without Trump on the ballot. Cheney's interpretation of the NRCC's internal numbers are that they are. Which, again, gets to some of Maloney's confidence based on the 2020 results.

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

The stark difference between the rhetoric of the democrat and republicans quoted in the article is astounding. There�s total asymmetry there, with the republicans sounding like talk radio and Sean Hannity. Whether that�s deliberate strategy or the result of the lunatics finally taking over the asylum, I�ll be interested to see whether it has any effect.

Definitely noted this as well. I've been pretty clear that I don't see any reason to assume competence from GOP party staff.

# ¿ May 9, 2021 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 21:17

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

I may have missed this earlier but Mississippi has also decided the topped up UI is simply too drat high.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1391892198782902282

poo poo, forget not being competitive at 40 hours a week, some American Small Businesses^TM are seeing staff make, just from Biden, more than they'd make in a 140 hour week.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1391892205443420161

# ¿ May 11, 2021 03:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USnews: Spooky Legislative Consequences

«‹›5 »