Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
From the Time article, I think. The author mentioned this on Morning Joe and Mika nodded and practically mouthed along like the extra special dish or dessert was a lifelong habit for him.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
From the Time article, I think. The author mentioned this on Morning Joe and Mika nodded and practically mouthed along like the extra special dish or dessert was a lifelong habit for him.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
From the trump fires comey threqd
Aaron Strife
Banned
Basically the best we can feasibly do in the Senate is tie it, which still gives Republicans control over the chamber thanks to Pence's tie-breaking vote. That still involves picking up NV and AZ and running the tables on every seat we already hold, including WV, MT, MO, ND and IN, the Romney Democrats.
Actually winning the Senate would be going into fanfic territory, like winning Texas or getting Collins (eww) to switch sides or something.
The beauty of AHCA (ewwwwwwwww) is if its effects are as bad as we fear (or worse!), Trump and the GOP will still be punished hard for it in 2020. I think ACA was far less damaging to Obama in 2012 because its most significant provisions still had yet to kick in, so no one was feeling the squeeze, and overall it's a pretty agreeable bill. Captain Dipshit's plan doesn't set in until 2020 when he's up for re-election, and a slew of vulnerable GOP senators are on the hook as well. 2020 we should be looking at Maine, Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, Montana, Iowa and Alaska just for starters.
Also - if we do win the 2020 presidential election, I suspect 2022 might not be too bad in the Senate. For seats we hold, there's New Hampshire which will be competitive, Colorado and Nevada which have been trending our way, but that's about it. If we manage to build a decent buffer between now and 2020 (say like, 55 seats?) we should be fine.
Ha, yep, same thing: Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Mike Capuano. Any time I call one of their offices I always start with, "I know you guys are already doing this, but I just feel like saying anyway..."
One thing I liked hearing at some of the protests earlier this year was the chants of "Where's Governor Baker! Where's Governor Baker!" We need to hammer that cowardice next year: he's not some anti-Trump champion, he's quiet far too many times.
Yeah all we can really do is canvas for nearby GOP districts, donate, and phone bank. I'm repped by Swalwell and I don't even bother calling since it would be just to tell him he's great lol.
Smiles and Cries
Member
I'm so behind
Trump has tapes?
Trump has tapes?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Spicer didn't deny it all he said was
"The president has nothing to add to it"
"The tweet speaks for itself"
If Liberals Hate Him, Then Trump Must Be Doing Something Right
Interesting article from NYT about how Conservatism in the Trump-era seems to be less about upholding the Constitution and rule of law and more about just doing whatever pisses off liberals. As others have said here, these days it's more about scoring "wins" for them. Even if those wins don't make logical sense, who cares? It annoyed liberals and democrats so it must not be a bad thing. He's absolutely right about this being the way conservative media handles any Trump controversy - side-step the actual issue and just relish in those sweat liberal tears.
Interesting article from NYT about how Conservatism in the Trump-era seems to be less about upholding the Constitution and rule of law and more about just doing whatever pisses off liberals. As others have said here, these days it's more about scoring "wins" for them. Even if those wins don't make logical sense, who cares? It annoyed liberals and democrats so it must not be a bad thing. He's absolutely right about this being the way conservative media handles any Trump controversy - side-step the actual issue and just relish in those sweat liberal tears.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Congress can subpoena the tapes. But they won't.
Pretty unlikely. He's saying if there were tapes it'd validate his story of his dinner with Comey. But Trump would never tape himself (and no adviser would suggest taping himself after the Access Hollywood tape) and wouldn't even have the foresight to do so anyway.
We are talking about the same person who has posed as his own publicist, records TV shows where they talk about him so he can see how he is portrayed, demands loyalty above all else, and still to this day clips news articles about himself do he can send them to the author or enemies.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Does anyone believe tapes exist?
Because he's obsessed with what other people are saying about him. But it's not like there are hours and hours of tapes of Trump monologuing his day-to-day to go with all that.
Officerrob
Banned
There are no tapes
I just don't see why this would be the line of believability at this point. I'm not saying there are tapes, I would just be utterly unsurprised if it turned out there were.
When we're telling you they're not voting on economics, for the love of god please believe us instead of projecting your rationalizations.
Trump's done it before.
BlastProcessing
Member
Kinda?
Wish they did but I also want to know what he knows about Ted Cruz' wife.
This is basically Hugh "I'm such an ~serious~ conservative intellectual" Hewitt's whole schtick.
Also, why is it that every time that someone mentions Susan Collins, they feel obliged to preface it with "the only moderate in the Senate!" Good lord.
nintendoman58
Member
Feels a bit early to consider 2018 an automatic loss with the way Dems have been turning out more in the special elections in red states so far already imo, that along with the trends of voters going against the one in power.
That being said, do we need to explicitly count on the Senate for any possible action against Trump for all the Russia crap? What other cases would we have to win?
WaPo: Why its likely that Trump does have recordings of his Oval Office conversations
In short, presidents in general and Trump specifically have histories of recording conversations. And multiple White House officials have alluded or implied that recordings of various conversations have been recorded before.
In short, presidents in general and Trump specifically have histories of recording conversations. And multiple White House officials have alluded or implied that recordings of various conversations have been recorded before.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I'm not really sure the scenario where we pick up Cruz's seat is compatible with also losing all of those seats.
Cruz's seat already requires a near landslide to win. He's totally vulnerable, but the situation where we win his seat is a +10/+15 Dem wave. Which wouldn't really mean we'd lose a half dozen senate seats. That would be pretty odd.
Cruz's seat already requires a near landslide to win. He's totally vulnerable, but the situation where we win his seat is a +10/+15 Dem wave. Which wouldn't really mean we'd lose a half dozen senate seats. That would be pretty odd.
Why do you just think on face that Dems will lose all of those seats? We have no retirements. I give Dem incumbents a very strong chance of surviving; if 2018 is a wave election, it's very feasible that Dems defend every seat up for re-election -- as wide as the map may be.
It's much more difficult to win against Flake than it is to, say, defend Manchin's seat I think.
It's just too bad we can't make a run at a state like Tennessee while we're at it.
Also, with Trump being such an enormous political liability - isn't it possible we see the likes of Susan Collins and others start eyeing Governorships to avoid the stain of being tied to this fallout?
Autodidact
Banned
That's Media's Moderate Darling Susan Collins to you, chump.
I liken it to their "See! I have a black friend!" game they play with Michael Steele, Ben Carson, Tim Scott: they put her in the window so they can say, "Look, we have a moderate! Why do those liberals say that Republicans are racist/sexist/insert hatred here?"
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm now arguing with a French communist who thinks that Mao wasn't a dictator, someone shoot me.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Yeah, no way that we lose red state seats while winning Texas. If we're winning Texas, we're probably keeping everything we already have plus winning Nevada and Arizona.
Chances of that are small, but Republicans won Senate seats in 2010 in states that Obama won by more than what Hillary lost Texas by. Not sure anyone expected them to have both Massachusetts and Illinois after 2010.
gutter_trash
Banned
hahahahaha
Call your Senators and tell them to OBJECT TO UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS.
The Democrats did this for exactly one day and then caved.
It literally only takes one senator to do this.
Every day they don't do this they're allowing the Republicans to advance their agenda of destroying Medicare and Medicaid and cementing a conservative judiciary, while condoning Trump's Nixonian antics.
🅿️📼🔜
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
whyamihere
Banned
This Nan Whaley announcement vid (Dayton mayor, running for Ohio gov) is pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU1akcXJC4&feature=youtu.be
AntraxSuicide
Banned
If you're talking impeachment (which is essentially the only recourse if he's done something illegal) then the House brings the impeachment charges but the Senate is the "jury."
We could try to charge him without impeachment (not even explicitly possible I think), and maybe if it was something super treasonous we'd get the FBI to do that. But it would have to be hardcore obvious.
Aaron Strife
Banned
If we won the House, that would be just as good - maybe even better as the House initiates impeachment proceedings should some damning evidence against Trump come to light.
The entire House is up for election every two years, whereas the Senate runs on staggered, six-year terms. Next year, 33 Senators will be up for re-election. We only need three seats to flip the chamber, but the problem is we did so well in 2012 that we're nearly maxed out in this class. Democrats have 25 Senators up for re-election whereas Republicans only have 8. Arizona and Nevada (GOP-held) were both very close in 2012 and are easily our best pickup opportunities, but finding that third seat is extremely difficult. Even with the encouraging trends we've seen in special elections, you're talking seats that would take an unprecedented blue wave to flip. There's also several Democrats up in states that Trump won, sometimes easily. Joe Manchin from West Virginia for example is running in a state that went for Trump by over 40 points.
After Nevada and Arizona, there's Texas (R+8), Mississippi (R+9), Nebraska (R+14), Tennessee (R+14), Utah (R+20) and Wyoming (R+25). I'd say those first four could be competitive in theory based on past election results, but Nebraska and Tennessee have trended away from us hard, Mississippi has a very low ceiling for Democrats (high African-American population, but racist as hell white population), leaving you with Texas which has always been sort of a white whale for Democrats looking at demographic trends. It's purpling plus Cruz's natural sliminess would be the perfect combination to let us win it, but I'm not convinced yet.
Just forewarned, I'm usually one of the more optimistic posters here, so take any analysis I post with a grain of salt.
Glad we got a good candidate here. Even if Ohio turns out to be a lost cause, not trying at all is significantly worse. Just look at 2014, Kasich went from winning by a little over 77,000 votes in 2010 to almost a million, but he only received 55,000 more votes than in 2010. The rest came from the Democrat being a complete joke, which had grave effects downticket.
There are only 9 Republican senators up for reelection in 2018, only two are potentially vulnerable while the rest have had 27%+ margins of victory for several years. You are not going to see Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee get flipped even in a wave year unless dramatic shift in politics happen. There is a chance, very slim I might add given the history, that considering how unpopular Cruz is and how barely managed to win his primary and the changes in demographics that he could 'maybe' lose to a decent challenger, but even that in a huge wave year sounds almost impossible, its more likely I think he gets primaried. Heller in Nevada and Flake in Arizona are definitely vulnerable. West Virginia senator Manchin would be a flat out miracle for him to retain his seat given the politicial shift in that state, it was a miracle he won it in the first place when he did. Indiana is another that has had a major shift in politics but I suppose its possible he might manage to survive if the climate stays right. Montana and North Dakota Dem senators are vulnerable, Wisconsin senator is vulnerable. The absolute best case scenario I see is a Dem tie in the senate by retaining all but Manchin, and getting rid of Heller, Flake and Cruz, and somehow someone like Collins switches parties while simultaneously declaring she would retire from the senate instead of seeking reelection. Make no mistake we do need to contest and retain every seat and try to gain every seat we can as they are 6 year stations, but its honestly not reasonable to believe we can take the senate, if we did it would be nothing short of a miracle. The house, gubernatorial elections, and state legislature should be consideried a priority given census and redistricting changes after the 2020 election.
As for your other question even if the dems had the senate they would still need republican senators to help them impeach Trump, that is the only way to stop anything he is doing in meddling with the the justice department and the investigations short of him getting kicked out in 2020. You need 2/3rd majority in the senate to convict someone in an impeachment trial which ultimately leads to his removal. If the GoP won't do it themselves when they actually have the power to replace, the sure as hell won't do it when the dems are in power to replace him with a dem president. This is why we should be putting on tremendous pressure on them now, we need to force the GoP to act or we won't see him get tossed till he is voting out in the 2020 elections.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
That was great!
I actually think Manchin is a pretty strong incumbent. WV is a state with deep union ties and is hugely reliant on Medicaid. The state's rightward shift in national politics hasn't been reflected (yet) in state elections, in the way that we've seen the Democratic party machine decimated in machine states like Arkansas. If ever there was a year Manchin could hold on for re-election, it's 2018.
I think Heitkamp and Donnelly are more vulnerable than Manchin is.
I think Heitkamp and Donnelly are more vulnerable than Manchin is.
StopMakingSense
Member
Dems too despondent to pick up the phone.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
whyamihere
Banned
legit lol
What's the sample error? Either that or I continue to be astounded by people who just don't give a shit.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Gallup moves up and down all the time.
Kander's strong performance in 2016 makes me think that McCaskill can probably hold on with a D wave + incumbency advantage. Will definitely be an uphill battle, though.
His base is excited by just how much he is pissing off liberals.
let's not trot out the horse riding puns.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
No Republican cares that Trump is a criminal, but it's still important to follow up on!
Carpe Libertatem
Member
- Status