|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Have there been any announcements from Trump outside of the Patriot Party announcement? I'm a little surprised he's been this quiet... By all accounts he's spent the past week sulking around Mar-A-Lago and just waiting to see who comes to collect his head first.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:By all accounts he's spent the past week sulking around Mar-A-Lago and just waiting to see who comes to collect his head first. We've focused so much on Donald's obsession with attention and praise, that I think we've forgotten his obsession with being a lazy sack of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Have there been any announcements from Trump outside of the Patriot Party announcement? I'm a little surprised he's been this quiet... Apparently the Patriot Party thing wasn't actually real/by him. He did set up the "Office of the Former President"(lol), whatever the gently caress that means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Apparently the Patriot Party thing wasn't actually real/by him. He did set up the "Office of the Former President"(lol), whatever the gently caress that means. This created a minor scandal because 1: He made stationary with the Oval Office logo on it and legally speaking You Can't Do That. And 2:A ton of Q enthusaists and other far-right extremists are taking it as a signal that he's really given up this time and Biden really is president
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:By all accounts he's spent the past week sulking around Mar-A-Lago and just waiting to see who comes to collect his head first. Reminder that he's not legally allowed to live at Mar a Lago, and there's a reasonable chance the Palm Beach town council is going to kick him out in a month or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Reminder that he's not legally allowed to live at Mar a Lago, and there's a reasonable chance the Palm Beach town council is going to kick him out in a month or two. He doesn’t have a house there? He just stays at the resort? How does he claim residency without a residence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:He doesn’t have a house there? He just stays at the resort? How does he claim residency without a residence? It's ok, I've heard Putin has some spare rooms. If he has enough space for a mini racecar track room he can totally have a pet American president room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:He doesn’t have a house there? He just stays at the resort? How does he claim residency without a residence? Being a resort, I'd assume people are allowed to stay there for a while. There is probably a time limit. He's Trump. He's going to assert it's a residence and dare someone to take him to court to prove otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
Also Mar-A-Lago is a historic landmark which means there are complications with buying and selling no matter how rich and influential you are.
DarklyDreaming fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
To save the Googling, yeah, basically: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mar-a-lago-palm-beach-b1793805.html quote:In 1993, Mr Trump was beset with financial problems with his casinos and millions in upkeep required at Mar-a-Lago, which was then his private home, so agreed to a “special exception use” permit that allowed him to convert the estate into a social club. I suspect that "fraudulently declaring residency in Florida despite not having a permanent residence in Florida and then illegally voting in Florida" falls under the umbrella of "you can't charge a sitting president with a federal crime", combined with DeSantis loving him too much to charge him with a state crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
This is astounding, in short McConnell wanted Trump gone after the Capital Riots. His own party bucked and McConnell ended up blinking. I can't see the GOP continuing to win elections with Trump as a member of the party. Not to mention, his kids running for office.  My question, does anyone believe that this strategy is actually going to work? By that I mean the Republican Party taking back the Senate, House all the way to stuff like the various State and Local Governments. I can't see this occurring, not after the capital hill riots. https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT/status/1354905062812823556?s=20 https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1354793611985117189?s=20 Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jan 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is astounding, in short McConnell wanted Trump gone after the Capital Riots. His own party bucked and McConnell ended up blinking. I can't see the GOP continuing to win elections with Trump as a member of the party. Not to mention, his kids running for office. No one of sense is assuming it will, but when you genuinely believe God Has Chosen You To Save America, you don't have to back down from anything even as your friends and family continue to distance themselves from you
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is astounding, in short McConnell wanted Trump gone after the Capital Riots. His own party bucked and McConnell ended up blinking. I can't see the GOP continuing to win elections with Trump as a member of the party. Not to mention, his kids running for office. The political cunning of Mitch McConnell, Mastermind Majority Leader, continues to astound. As it turns out you can't back out of a deal with the Devil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Turtle on back, not helping. No one asks why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
I wonder how much poo poo McConnell heard from his wife, too. Since she would've been in the cabinet meetings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The political cunning of Mitch McConnell, Mastermind Majority Leader, continues to astound. As it turns out you can't back out of a deal with the Devil. It’s funny seeing all the “very serious” Republicans watch the crazies take control of the party. NPR has had a couple on this week with various opinions about how the serious people won’t let the crazies take over and another slowly resigning to the fact that it’s happening. I learned about the German Stab in the Back myth today, and it makes me really scared for the future of the country if the Republicans ever gain serious power again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Romney is going to break away and form a Mormon party at some point, you heard it here first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The political cunning of Mitch McConnell, Mastermind Majority Leader, continues to astound. As it turns out you can't back out of a deal with the Devil. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad his party is making awful, terrible political decisions. For McConnell this means instead of enjoying retirement as successful public servant instead he'll be stuck watching everything he created burn down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
It certainly might. Memory of the Capitol insurrection will fade with time, and there's nothing any more insane about that than a bunch of stuff that's happened in the last four years. Endless cable news and social media have really changed the baseline reality we are dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I can't see the GOP continuing to win elections with Trump as a member of the party. Not to mention, his kids running for office. I think it'll result in the already very Republican areas becoming even chuddier, they'll have to double down on Trump or lose their seats, but areas of contention (that are Purple so to speak) or were leaning slightly Democratic will tend to go to the Democrats. The reason is those same super chuddier reps who'll double down on Trump (they'll probably get the nomination in the primaries) will be running in those areas too and they'll be a turn off for people on the fence who'll then either vote D or at least choose not to vote R. Obviously all that is essentially a future prediction but I think that is how it'll play out since it looks like the establishment GOP'ers already tried to tap the brakes and found they aren't working anymore. I don't think the point of it is to necessarily gain seats. I think they're trying to hold onto their base, along with what power and influence they can, and prevent a big schism which would totally destroy the party for a generation at least. There is already something of a small schism that exists IMO due to some of the less insane and/or more principled typical R voters backing away from the crazies who are doing nothing but doubling down on Trump. All we can do at this point is hope the cracks in the GOP continue to widen and they keep nominating batshit loons who fail in the general elections for seats. Going by Sabato's latest Crystal Ball it looks like (for now, yes 2022 is ~2yr away, lots can happen yadda yadda) that maybe only 1 Senate seat is in play so we can't count on the filibuster being killed even then. D's probably need to win at least 3 seats in the Senate to have a decent shot of overcoming Sinema, Manchin, and at least 1 other rear end in a top hat who wants to keep the filibuster. 
PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 08:33
|
|
|
I'm not sure by what metric Sabato thinks holding both AZ and GA is somehow more likely than taking Wis or Penn, and that Wis is exactly as likely to flip as NC, but he better adjust his dials because that is some hot nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
It would be helpful to get current party identity polling.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 11:30
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:It’s funny seeing all the “very serious” Republicans watch the crazies take control of the party. NPR has had a couple on this week with various opinions about how the serious people won’t let the crazies take over and another slowly resigning to the fact that it’s happening. Trump's polling floor post January 6th is basically the share of Americans who actively want fascism rather than just generic conservatism. It's a minority but it's also way too many people to be complacent about. The problem the GOP has is that Trump was the catalyst for a large share of their base going fash, but he's out of the picture now and botched the landing so hard it made the Beer Hall Putsch look like a masterstroke. All the crazies are still there and the GOP need their votes to survive politically, but they are embittered and don't like establishment conservatives more than the left likes "succdems." Overly doctrinal lefties tend to see everyone to the right of themselves as identical, which is part of why fascism catches them wrong footed so often. Generic conservatives always think they can co opt the fash, and it always ends with the conservatives either co-opted themselves or hanging from a rope (like the capitol mob wanted to do to Pence) because the fash aren't just "rude conservatives." sean10mm fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Grape posted:Romney is going to break away and form a Mormon party at some point, you heard it here first. I wouldnt be surprised if romney and the few moderate Republicans that still exist form another party and take all the donor money and networks with them. Pulling these people out of the Republican party is going to suck and probably not work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Meatball posted:I wouldnt be surprised if romney and the few moderate Republicans that still exist form another party and take all the donor money and networks with them. Maybe, but the sheer power of the US first-past-the-post single-winner electoral system to compress everyone with any interest in accruing political power into two large parties is incredibly strong. Realignments can happen, but it would take a lot to overcome the disincentives to actually trying to form a new party, rather than staking out a regional or factional stance within an existing party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
Independents have managed to win senate races, so I could see Romney at least holding his own running as Indy or 3rd party in Utah. I doubt it would work anywhere else though. Not enough mormons in the other states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
You're not going to see establishment Republicans organize to form their own party. They lack the popular base needed to do so: the compact of the republican party since Reagan been they mobilize voters on social issues to support their unpopular economic agenda. What you're seeing instead is establishment officials retiring as they individually reach their own breaking points and taking cushy consulting gigs out of office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Morrow posted:You're not going to see establishment Republicans organize to form their own party. They lack the popular base needed to do so: the compact of the republican party since Reagan been they mobilize voters on social issues to support their unpopular economic agenda. yeah the only way you get a split is if the crazies form their own party. the establishment republicans are establishment republicans precisely because they have a sense of how to actually get and use power, enough to realize that nothing marginalizes you harder than your side splitting into two parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
This seems weird to me and I don't like it. Kevin McCarthy publicly going down to Florida to kiss Cheetoh's ring. Even if he was making the cold calculation that yeah we have to go the fashy Trumpy direction, we're the longest we'll be from any election and any primaries starting. It seems unnecessary unless he felt Trump was going to start holding rallies tomorrow against The Ten. Which I suppose is what Gaetz is doing. GOPers, not even Trump, actively campaigning against their own members from other states, in order that the NON-Trumpists get purged, seems bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:This seems weird to me and I don't like it. Kevin McCarthy publicly going down to Florida to kiss Cheetoh's ring. Even if he was making the cold calculation that yeah we have to go the fashy Trumpy direction, we're the longest we'll be from any election and any primaries starting. It seems unnecessary unless he felt Trump was going to start holding rallies tomorrow against The Ten. Which I suppose is what Gaetz is doing. It seems to me that what McCarthy is doing is reassuring Trump that he's the mainstream of the Republican Party now, so that he doesn't take his ball and go home or flirt any more with the Patriot Party idea. The statement McCarthy put out explicitly says Trump is going to stay in the party and campaign to win back the House and Senate in 2022, which is basically a reassurance to Trump voters that they're not memory-holing him like McConnell supposedly wanted, so there's no need to abandon the Republicans. My reading is that McCarthy is trying to head off a GOP civil war by reconciling the establishment and Trump wings of the party, which means the civil war is more likely to become a purge of anti-Trump Republicans (which is what we're already seeing in places like Arizona and Michigan) than an actual debate over the party's goals and methods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
Maybe this is over simplifying but if I'm a cynical, soulless, seat-chasing congressman, I look at the House majority after 2018 when there wasn't a Trump vote and then I look at 2020 where there was and the conclusion I come to is: unless we turn out these Trump people when he's not on the ballot, we're hosed. It's probably more complicated than that but I think most congresspeople don't really think that deeply about it. The problem is that I don't think you can just "be like Trump", you have to have a particular set of personality disorders
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It seems to me that what McCarthy is doing is reassuring Trump that he's the mainstream of the Republican Party now, so that he doesn't take his ball and go home or flirt any more with the Patriot Party idea. The statement McCarthy put out explicitly says Trump is going to stay in the party and campaign to win back the House and Senate in 2022, which is basically a reassurance to Trump voters that they're not memory-holing him like McConnell supposedly wanted, so there's no need to abandon the Republicans. My reading is that McCarthy is trying to head off a GOP civil war by reconciling the establishment and Trump wings of the party, which means the civil war is more likely to become a purge of anti-Trump Republicans (which is what we're already seeing in places like Arizona and Michigan) than an actual debate over the party's goals and methods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
My guess is McCarthy saw what happened to Cheney when she broke from Trump, and would rather that not happen to him. I don't think there's anything more there, McCarthy is by all accounts not the brightest bulb in the box and certainly not a strategic thinker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
It's worth also remembering that some ridiculous proportion of House seats are not ever competitive in general elections. Something like 80-90% of seats are safe blue or red seats where the real election is the primary, and then there's a much much smaller portion that are swing seats where a Republican or a Democrat has a shot at winning the general. Here's a Ballotpedia chart showing this:  72% of House seats were won in the general election by 15% or more, and another 19% were won by between 5-15%. Only 8% of seats had a margin of victory within 5%. The vast majority of Republican congresspeople are more likely to lose their seats by getting primaried than by losing a general election, and so their self-preservation instincts are strongly aligned with doing what the base wants rather than doing what the general electorate wants. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:My guess is McCarthy saw what happened to Cheney when she broke from Trump, and would rather that not happen to him. I don't think there's anything more there, McCarthy is by all accounts not the brightest bulb in the box and certainly not a strategic thinker. They're reactionaries, after all. They see the mob is fully in control, so they react. They've got no principles or guiding philosophy of governance, they just want to hold on to their jobs and they'll weathervane however they need in order to keep it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
That's not what reactionary means, it basically just means "conservative", and it's a holdover from the French revolution. I'm not telling you this to chide you, I think people use that word knowing that most people will misinterpret it as a kind of shibboleth for "I'm Mr. Smart Politics Man". In fact a common English reading of the meaning, as you used, is both clear and useful for describing knee-jerk politics, but it's just a heads up so some sneering polisci major on twitter doesn't use that to derail a point you made over definition pedantry :-) Someone once explained this to me after I used it "incorrectly" like you did, and I'm paying it forward. Neoliberal is another term like that, it doesn't just mean "These liberals today" it's a specific economic theory e: I guess revanchist would probably be a better term than conservative but if you see someone using it it's almost always just referring to a conservative party So I'm not the very same tedious vocab pedant I'm supposed to be critiquing here's some content: Looks like some in the AZ state legislature decided the problem with the election was that the state legislature couldn't unilaterally decide who gets a state's electoral votes: https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1354980030560915461 I'll point out this is just an introduced bill (one of our dudes just filed a bill to let Wee the Peeple decide if Texas should secede, for example) and it may not even get a hearing. But there are at least some in the GOP who are cool with not being in a democracy anymore. zoux fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's worth also remembering that some ridiculous proportion of House seats are not ever competitive in general elections. Something like 80-90% of seats are safe blue or red seats where the real election is the primary, and then there's a much much smaller portion that are swing seats where a Republican or a Democrat has a shot at winning the general. Are there still enough establishment Republicans in power that they can use the upcoming redistricting to blunt the Trumpist wng if the party? I'm not sure if that is really possible, since presumably the primaries are relatively independent of district makeup, but it's an interesting thought exercise I haven't seen addressed yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
I don't know if I've seen that exact question answered, but I have seen some discussion about whether the 2020 results are really something you want to gerrymander on relative to for example the 2018 results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
That reminds me, the Census Bureau said yesterday they don't expect to release redistricting data until the end of July so I don't know how state legislatures are supposed to get maps ready for the '22 primaries. Normally they'd be out by February or early March.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
pthighs posted:Are there still enough establishment Republicans in power that they can use the upcoming redistricting to blunt the Trumpist wng if the party? I'm not sure if that is really possible, since presumably the primaries are relatively independent of district makeup, but it's an interesting thought exercise I haven't seen addressed yet. I don't know if that's something they can or would think about doing, but it would be based on a big assumption that Republican primary voters can be geographically divided into moderate and Trumpist wings. And even if they started drawing maps based on that assumption, they would then have to a dual gerrymander that would somehow create both moderate primary electorates and GOP general electorates, which would be a very delicate and maybe impossible balancing act. zoux posted:That's not what reactionary means, it basically just means "conservative", and it's a holdover from the French revolution. I'm not telling you this to chide you, I think people use that word knowing that most people will misinterpret it as a kind of shibboleth for "I'm Mr. Smart Politics Man". In fact a common English reading of the meaning, as you used, is both clear and useful for describing knee-jerk politics, but it's just a heads up so some sneering polisci major on twitter doesn't use that to derail a point you made over definition pedantry :-) Someone once explained this to me after I used it "incorrectly" like you did, and I'm paying it forward. I'm not sure this is the right thread for a detailed discussion of this, but I would push back a little bit on this. In classical political thought, "conservatism" of the Edmund Burke type doesn't mean the same thing as "conservatism" means today. Burkean conservatism, in theory at least, didn't mean "prevent all change", it meant that slow and gradual reforms in society were okay, but what was most important was conserving social stability and valuing tradition, which Burkean conservatives thought was only possible with gradual change, never with the radical change of the French Revolution that Burke was writing against. Political evolution over political revolution, basically--slow the pace of change down so that there isn't mass dislocation in society, and so that people who benefit from existing politics don't suffer from losing their privilege too quickly (for example, Burke was huge on property rights, which would protect people of privilege even with gradually changing social, cultural, or political norms). In practice, of course, even Burkean conservatism often reduced to trying to prevent any change at all. But the basic premise was that people who benefited from the status quo wanted to preserve the status quo as much as possible, and any change to the status quo should be done slowly to prevent harmful dislocation. "Reactionary" political thought means something different, which isn't about allowing gradual evolution rather than revolution, or even about preventing gradual evolution, it's about restoring an older state of affairs, whether real or imaginary, that was perceived as better for the reactionaries than the status quo. You're right that the current use of this term stems from the French Revolution, but it exists to describe those who, during the revolution, wanted to restore the monarchy and the ancien regime with all its injustices and inequalities, because they liked that better than the post-revolutionary status quo. They shared common cause with conservatives like Burke who also disliked the revolution, but they had different end goals. When people call the GOP a reactionary political party, they aren't wrong, but it isn't because it means the same thing as "conservative." In classical poli sci talk, the Democratic Party could be thought of as a "conservative" party because it believes in the Burkean model of evolution over revolution, slow improvement, and trying to avoid social dislocation while the status quo gradually changes, while the GOP could be thought of as a "reactionary" party because it dislikes the status quo and wants to return to a (real or imagined) past when the GOP's voter demographics and political elites had more power and privilege. These terms don't align with contemporary American political discourse in which "liberal" means slow and steady progress and "conservative" means not just allowing no change, but also backtracking on changes that have taken place over the last century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:01
|
|