I've been pretty skeptical of Elizabeth Warren Vice President talk. I always felt like she wouldn't work because she so strongly believes in her own ideas that she could never represent a President Hillary Clinton's ideas.
That's been my main reservation: an ideological mismatch. She has not been reluctant at time to come out against the Obama White House when she didn't agree-like on TPP, on Larry Summers for Fed Chairman, etc.
If she is in the White House she can't do that. This is why I always assumed it couldn't happen. And maybe that's the truth.
Maybe this is just a question of neutralizing Bernie and getting Warren some goodwill with the next Democratic Administration.
But after seeing them out on the trail again, I'm starting to think: maybe.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/27/warren_slams_trump_in_appearance_with_clinton_131027.html
Maybe it's me, but they certainly seemed very comfortable with each other out there on the stump. Hillary seemed really to enjoy Warren's spiel. The worry has been that Warren could overshadow her.
But Hillary didn't show any such concern. They really seemed to be bonding. There was no awkwardness when you're trying to look like buddies but it's just not there.
So maybe Hilary really will double down like Bill did back in 1992 when he chose another Southern moderate for VP with Al Gore.
Once Bill and Al Gore were out the trail, they clearly had this chemistry together, throwing around the football together, etc.
Hillary and Warren seemed to have some real chemistry. So who knows?
In other news: the GOP has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi to admit that: Hillary did nothing wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/28/republicans-accomplish-their-benghazi-mission/
I guess the one thing they accomplished was the fake email scandal that clearly has hurt her favorability at least in the short term.
In other news still: A couple new PPP polls from Pennsylvania and Ohio, show Hillary leading Trump by 4 in both states.
This is a positive move for her in both states relative to polls from about a month ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
There is also some shock to see her only trailing Trump by 8 points in Texas. Of course, we've seen them neck and neck in Utah. Clearly he's expanding the map.
Greg Sargent talks about how voters actually prefer Hillary's approach to Orlando in large numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/28/impossible-but-true-strongman-donald-trump-is-losing-the-argument-over-terrorism/
I think you'll find the same thing on Brexit, which I believe will further sober Americans up on Trump to realize this is not a joke, so, let's not become a joke like Britain.
That's been my main reservation: an ideological mismatch. She has not been reluctant at time to come out against the Obama White House when she didn't agree-like on TPP, on Larry Summers for Fed Chairman, etc.
If she is in the White House she can't do that. This is why I always assumed it couldn't happen. And maybe that's the truth.
Maybe this is just a question of neutralizing Bernie and getting Warren some goodwill with the next Democratic Administration.
But after seeing them out on the trail again, I'm starting to think: maybe.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/27/warren_slams_trump_in_appearance_with_clinton_131027.html
Maybe it's me, but they certainly seemed very comfortable with each other out there on the stump. Hillary seemed really to enjoy Warren's spiel. The worry has been that Warren could overshadow her.
But Hillary didn't show any such concern. They really seemed to be bonding. There was no awkwardness when you're trying to look like buddies but it's just not there.
So maybe Hilary really will double down like Bill did back in 1992 when he chose another Southern moderate for VP with Al Gore.
Once Bill and Al Gore were out the trail, they clearly had this chemistry together, throwing around the football together, etc.
Hillary and Warren seemed to have some real chemistry. So who knows?
In other news: the GOP has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi to admit that: Hillary did nothing wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/28/republicans-accomplish-their-benghazi-mission/
I guess the one thing they accomplished was the fake email scandal that clearly has hurt her favorability at least in the short term.
In other news still: A couple new PPP polls from Pennsylvania and Ohio, show Hillary leading Trump by 4 in both states.
This is a positive move for her in both states relative to polls from about a month ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
There is also some shock to see her only trailing Trump by 8 points in Texas. Of course, we've seen them neck and neck in Utah. Clearly he's expanding the map.
Greg Sargent talks about how voters actually prefer Hillary's approach to Orlando in large numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/28/impossible-but-true-strongman-donald-trump-is-losing-the-argument-over-terrorism/
I think you'll find the same thing on Brexit, which I believe will further sober Americans up on Trump to realize this is not a joke, so, let's not become a joke like Britain.
If and when Texas ever does go blue (not just for one vote, but in general), it will be a great day for the US: CA 55, NY 29, Illinois 20, and Texas 38, 142 electoral votes right there, not to mention a bunch of other "sure thing" blue states... damn, that will really change the map and make the GOP's job much harder.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Ann Coulter is peeing her panties over the prospect. I'd like to see a creeping blue tendril move from CA out along the Southern border: AZ, NM (already there pretty much), and then TX. The Repubs should just throw in the towel at that point.
They can reconstitute themselves as the Bathroom Birther party, and become a regional party of parts of the Old Confederacy, plains states, and land locked West: obsessed with checking genitals before people enter public bathrooms.
Thing is Tom, the GOP is already having trouble winning national elections even with a red Texas but they are actually making gains at all state levels even in blue states. They are controlling more state houses and governorships by the year. Sure it really chaps their asses to have to look at a Democrat giving the State of the Union but they still keep finding ways to control peoples lives
DeleteThe fight needs to change I think. The presidency is nice but while we have been fighting for presidencies the GOP just keeps tightening the noose at the state levels. I know it changed recently but look how long Cali went dem for president and still had a GOP dominated state house.
They are also fighting for school boards, city managers etc. I fear Dems dont have enough energy to fight at all the levels that the GOP looks to fight. The conservatives live to take control of things, its their nature and they lose at one level and they just move on down to the next and fight for it. Our only reprieve I think is that these younger conservatives aren't quite as hard right as their daddies and grandpas............. yet!
There are a number of reasons to be optimistic though. We have the abortion ruling yesterday. A Hilary win which is likely gives them back the SJC.
DeleteAs for Congress and the state, in party this is due to the fact that normally when one party dominates at the Presidential level, they lose seats on Congress and often at the gubernatorial level.
I don't disagree Greg that Dems need to be aware of the state level-and I from what I hear, at least they are now aware of the problem.
If Hillary wins by a large margin-high single even double digits, this will have a coattail effect and the Dems can even pick up a lot more House seats.
So yes, the states are important but simply winning the Presidency by a healthy margin will help a lot-coattails, SJC, etc.
I agree with Greg to the extent that you never want to be complacent. I do think some reasonable confidence is in order
I also think the Trump thing is something that Dems can hold over GOP heads for years.
DeleteTo have supported Donald Trump, said you will vote for him, defended him in anyway, heck, even being from the same party will tarnish the GOPers for years if Dems wield it.
I's almost like having supported David Duke. It's not a one off.
This is why the smarter conservatives realize you simply don't want to support Trump in any way shape or sound.
It's not about this year it's about future elections
That abortion ruling yesterday may put the pro lifers back years.
Delete"Supreme Court Is Really Done With Anti-Abortion Laws For A While"
"The justices won’t review rulings from Wisconsin and Mississippi that effectively struck down so-called “admitting privileges” requirements."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-abortion-wisconsin-mississippi_us_57728168e4b0f168323ae4ea?section=
Greg as long as I got you here, here is my rather lengthy response to your earlier comment about JG vs. Basic Income. I agree with you to a large extent.
Delete" I think it is much more likely to get support politically for an increase in social spending if the spending is going to people who are working."
You would certainly think so. Yet what's interesting is that Neoclassical economists like Sumner seem particularly dismissive of the JG. Why I don't know.
But it seems to have something with their dislike of 'targeted transfers.'
Like even Matt Yglesias-much more of a liberal or 'progressive' than Sumner-also complains about 'make-work' proposals.
As best as I can tell this opposition for most NC for the JG as opposed to Basic Income is because NCs don't like 'make-work'-what they see as invented 'unproductive' work and they don't like conditional transfers which they see as 'paternalistic'
For instance, here is Yglesias on BI vs. JG:
Should there be a program in which money is given to people who can't find jobs in the labor market?
"Should receipt of that money be made conditional on performing make-work labor for the government?"
"My view is "yes" and "no" and therefore that we should have a generous welfare state but not a federal jobs guarantee. When left-wing people say they want a jobs guarantee, I take it that they are saying they want more generous treatment of jobless people and a floor on living standards."
"Those are fine ideas. But why insist on delivering that generosity in the specific form of "here's a make-work job for you to do in exchange for a check"? Why not just hand over the check? That way you don't need to cut as many checks to people supervising the work, obtaining the equipment to do the work, etc."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/16/jobs_guarantee_more_trouble_than_it_s_worth.html
Now I've seen the MMTers like Bill Mitchell argue, and their argument is that
1. If you simply hand poor people check it doesn't magically lift them out of poverty. For instance, they still lack the experience and still aren't employable.
Of course, the longer you're out of work, the less willing employers are willing to hire you. JG helps them keep their skills and resumes up to date
2. Also, the MMTers argue that a JG is much less inflationary than BI-where you simply send people money.
Here is Mitchell on the difference between conditional and unconditional transfers-and why he thinks there's a case to be made for conditional transfers or wealth transfers vs. 'in kind' transfers:
The moralists always criticise these type of programs because they consider them paternalistic interventions to free choice. In most microeconomics textbooks you will find some discussion about the “optimality” of cash transfers versus in-kind (or conditional) transfers. The mainstream economists usually conclude that unconditional cash transfers are “best” because they allow “free choice”.
The reality is that when confronted with a starving child it is always better to give them “food” than give their father money to drink or gamble away! Children do not have “free choice”. I could write a whole blog about this sort of debate."
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13025
Here, he's referring to a program in Brazil where the government gave money for the kids to the mother-not the father as so many Brazilian fathers either drink or gamble the money away!
I cut and pasted it here
DeleteI agree that the Dems need to make a priority of controlling the power to redistrict in states across the US in 2020. Because the GOP actually LOSES the popular vote for house seats (overall... that is in total number of votes cast, red or blue, over the whole US), but nonetheless their representation in congress is WAY out of proportion. If anything, it should be the senate they are more competitive in (because states like Wyoming get two senators just like CA or NY, when if we were dividing the senators up by population, WY and about four other nearby low population states should get 1 senator to split between them, and CA should get about 12 and NY about 6 and Georgia should get 3).
DeleteI just calculated it: Wyoming should get about 0.17 senators... less than Washington DC should get. So about 5 similarly sized states should share a single senator, if all was right with the world. =)
Now you and Mike may not like that idea (as both your states would get less than mine =).
Actually, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment regarding how house districts are drawn: I think we should specify an algorithm which does it for all the states, with a very detailed procedure for what it takes to make adjustments to the algorithm. The result (I'm thinking) would be to the advantage of the GOP in some cases, to the advantage of Dems in others (all in all a wash), and a LOT more competitive seats, which I think would be a good thing.
It's ridiculous that it comes down to a battle of gerrymandering. It would have to be the Dems that introduced such an amendment when the roll of die had come out in their favor in some sort of landslide down ballot victory... because the GOP knows they are in trouble, and they won't be men enough to suggest such a thing when they're in power... but they just might agree to it if the alternative is to have the gerrymandering go against them.
I shouldn't get more Senators than you Tom. But I should get more than Wyoming
DeleteThat's right: if you take the population of each state and divide it by the total US population, then it comes out like this:
DeleteWyoming: 0.17 senators
Georgia: 3 senators
NY: 6 senators
CA: 12 senators
Hell, Puerto Rico should get 1 full senator (about 5 Wyomings worth).
Assuming we keep 100 senators total.
I realize that's not what the founding fathers had in mind though, so it'll be a tough sell.
I guess my broader point is that it's really kind of incredible that the Dems are competitive in the Senate, but not the house! I'll keep the competitiveness in the Senate (even though Dems are at a disadvantage there) and we should move to Dems having a LOCK on the house!
... actually Puerto Rico should have about 6 Wyomings worth.
DeleteStatehood for Puerto Rico and DC.
DeleteYou are still talking about federal representation though Tom, aren't you? Im talking about state senates and houses.
DeleteWell Greg, maybe you should run at the state level. Though I'm guessing you're in a Red district...
DeleteGreg, I am talking Federal, but the gerrymandering I speak of takes place at the State level, right? So I guess I'm implying that to gerrymander effectively, or to at least ungerrymander what the GOP has done requires Dem control of statehouses.
DeleteI've read though that it's easier for GOP districts to be gerrymandered successfully because Dems tend to concentrate themselves in urban areas. I guess what that means is if you wanted to design a safe GOP seat that still "sterilized" a good number of Dem votes, you'd cut off the corner of some urban area to mix into your rural district. Probably something like 45% Dem, 55% GOP would be perfect. It makes it highly unlikely that the Dems will win, but you maximize the effectiveness of your GOP vote by not wasting too many votes in lopsided victories.
Dem districts in the middle of large urban areas may be harder to work with because they are so small that they may be surrounded by other Dem districts, leading to lopsided Dem victories which don't make the best use of Dem votes to gain seats.
So part of the problem may just be geography working against the Dems.
It'd be fun to design a computer program to try to maximize the number of competitive seats in each state. I bet the result would look pretty fucking gerrymandered though.
Other than an algorithm, another solution could be to hire a firm to gerrymander so that the representatives elected most closely matches the relative population of each voter in your state. So the closer the firm gets to the real proportions, the more money it gets.
DeleteSay for example, if you had 40% A voters and 60% B voters, and you had 10 districts, then the closer the election outcome comes to 4 A reps and 6 B reps the more money he gets. Say he loses 10% of his fee for every rep he's off. So if it comes out 5 As and 5 Bs, then he's only paid 90% of his fee.
2010 was a disaster for gerrymandering against Dems. Rachael Maddow discusses it here:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkbeSUyDdCM
And she brings up something else which is disturbing: using the gerrymandered districts to pick presidential electors (a proposal floated in several of the states the GOP took over). She says there's nothing stopping them from crossing that "Rubicon." Imagine if Dems routinely take 55% of the presidential vote, but lose in electoral landslides. It'd be pitchfork time... so maybe that would stop them. However they could then pass a law saying it's illegal to publish popular vote totals... Lol.... I wouldn't put it past frightened little power mad Republicans desperately trying to maintain control even though they KNOW they're in the minority.
The system sucks. We need to get rid of the electoral college for president, and just go by popular vote. For one.
But I hate this gerrymandering BS too.
If I was a rich motherfucker who felt like blowing lots of money on fucking up the GOP, I'd pay Washington DC residents and Puerto Rico residents to abandon their homes and take up residence in strategically located districts, just so I could fuck over the GOP statehouses. I wouldn't tell them how to vote, mind you, just where to live.
If the inhabitants of Puerto Rico moved to about six states (7 if you include DC) in the land locked west, they could totally dominate the elections in those states and thus control 12 to 14 senate seats. Plus they could take statehouses, governorships, etc. In fact I bet you could realistically do it to more than 7 states.
Can you imagine how much fun that would be? Can you imagine how angry you'd make the GOP? OMG, that would be fun!
Mike, this poll result is good news (check the bottom):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/06/28/poll-hillary-gains-ground-trump-loses-independents/
Trump bests Hillary in only a few categories one of which is "Who will do better for the wealthy?" (which she should let him have). I think she has a chance to take away the other 3 or 4 categories he's currently ahead in and make it a complete blowout.
http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/06/28/poll-hillary-gains-ground-trump-loses-independents/
If they add a category like "Who is most likely to start a tragic and unnecessary war due to a bruised ego, emotional immaturity, stubbornness, colossal ignorance and a striking inability and/or desire to learn or adapt to new situations?" ... then she should let him have that one too (although I'm pretty sure Trump has an insurmountable lead already).
Indeed. Thanks for the links
DeleteEven Erick Erickson (if you read between the lines) realizes that the Benghazi report is a bust for the GOP. It's fun... you can almost hear his gulp as he swallows that bitter pill.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see a side by side characterization of the "scandal" of Benghazi vs Bush admin blunders: the invasion of Iraq, the missed opportunity to get Bin Laden, and 9/11
The stench from the pile of rotting corpses from Bush's ineptitude is many orders of magnitude greater than anything you can throw at Clinton, even if we just accept the GOP's report at face value w/o challenging a single word of it (which would be stupid).
http://theresurgent.com/we-know-two-things-about-benghazi-for-sure/
DeleteOf course RedState regular and poster boy for Hillary Derangement Syndrome cases in the #NeverTrump camp, streiff, tries to spin it in the most unattractive way possible (even Erick doesn't stoop this low):
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/28/benghazi-phone-rang-3am-hillary-clinton-obsessed-clothing-marines-wear/
It's the fact that Bush's blunders produced a pile of corpses many times the size of anything HRC could plausibly be held responsible for... a pile which for Bush is still growing, just goes to show the utter moral bankruptcy of the right-wingers on the Benghazi score. What a bunch of phony hunks of shit, with all their holier-than-thou Christian pronouncements on the subject over the years.
DeleteI bet if Chris Stevens had instead stubbed his toe (and the other three had survived as well), then the Republicans' report would have only been a couple of pages shorter.
They were desperate to politicize Benghazi, I think in part, to give the appearance that Bush's shit didn't reek as much in comparison. And then along comes Trump and pins the whole miserable debacle on the Bush squad (and his family!), and they have to sit there and take it! Lol... how sweet that was.
Hell, I'm actually willing to cut Bush a LOT of slack on 9/11 (I know you're probably not), and on the missed opportunity to get Bin Laden. Iraq and WMD however is where I draw the line.
But oh no, not the GOP. They get their petty claws into it and they HAVE to make a mountain out of the mole hill in order to appease their conspiracy theory addled racist base... who feel sick to their stomachs every time they look at Obama, hear his obviously eloquent voice, and have to say his "ferun" sounding name. I think it's all cultural for them: they just can't stand to see and hear the man. It feel like an "uppity" ferun (that's my hillbilly misspelling of "foreign" BTS) half breed looking down his nose at them, and the start looking for the nearest noose.
I admit, I have the same kind of cultural biases: Bush for example seems like a read dope to me... a Texas sized one... but I'll give him credit where it's due (the few places it is). He went to the mosque after 9/11 and tried to CALM people's emotions down. Bravo for him! Something I could NEVER see Trump doing!
If Bush had rejected the call to go into Iraq and had a more sensible response, I may have even voted for him a 2nd time... (despite my intense dislike for him on a cultural level) ... and yes, that probably would have been a mistake (almost assuredly so). But the rabid GOP base is not like that. The see a corpse, and they want to hang it in the town square and make endless speeches about who is responsible (which changes according to who their candidate is running against). They are truly despicable.
... in other words, I'm willing to cut a president some slack on what looks like an accident or an oversight or a miss-estimation, regardless of party. Things happen and people do get killed sometimes.
DeleteI think Benghazi was a perfect case of that. Could things have been done better? Absolutely, but the hypocritical Monday morning quarter backing by these highly politicized scum really turns my stomach.
What if we scaled up the 9/11 commission report or the WMD commission report (there was one right? Because of "intelligence failures" about the WMD?) to match the phony outpouring of accusations from Benghazi? How many billions would it have cost? How many truckloads of pages would be in the report? How many 100s of years would it have gone on for?
Billions... more like Trillions or 10s of trillions.
DeleteBTW, if you ever quote my comments in a post, please feel free to correct my numerous typos... I'm always aghast at how many I produce in a single comment.
DeleteMike and Greg,
ReplyDeleteMaybe the three of us should apply for speaking slots at Trump's convention: it looks like nobody else cares:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/06/28/ted-cruz-donald-trump-dont-care-dont-invite-speak-convention/
Shoot, if there is a delegate revolt, one of us might get the job since nobody else will be there to pick up the pieces. Lol...
I have to say, that would really cause me to hurt myself laughing if Mike Sax, author of "Diary of a Republican Hater" were to get the GOP nod ... imagine that! You could go out and campaign for Hillary! Lol... but I'm not sure you could improve on the job Trump is already doing.
Actually, I do have kind of sick fantasy of being a fire and brimstone preacher in some fundy/evangelical corrugated metal "mega-church" somewhere... telling my flock about all the tortures of hell they'll experience because they're all worthless sinners...
DeleteIt would be almost as good being the GOP nominee... I could try to out-Trump Trump being an obnoxious asshole... spouting off about racial purity, my raw Alpha-male strength, and how I'm better than God himself! I could try to peddle ridiculously overpriced bottles of my Alpha male testosterone infused "musk" at every campaign rally. I'd call it "Brown brand SAVAGE STRENGTH juice!!!"
That's the beauty of it Tom. Trump may not literally be a Clinton plant but he may as well have been for all the damage he's doing to the GOP
DeleteIm not completely dismissing the idea that Trump may be in on some big con against the GOP, some of this stuff is just too much. Its like he is trying to pick the most ridiculous path to a presidency possible.
DeleteGreg, we'll know soon enough when Trump selects his VP. If it's Gary Busey then the "Trump is trolling the GOP" bet is probably right.
Delete