brian wrote:The other major takeaway is not that GOP voters switched to Jones, although some obviously did, but this was all about turnout, especially black and young voters.
There's a template here that can be copied in the midterms. Ted Cruz should be shitting his pants because if Alabama can flip 30 points from 2016 (even with a seriously flawed candidate), then Texas can easily flip 10 or so.
Ted's likely main challenger (I don't follow Texas politics that closely) is Beto O'Rourke, former bandmate of guys in At the Drive-In!
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
brian wrote:The GOP didn't want Moore to run to begin with. I'm sure the Alabama GOP and national GOP would have been perfectly happy for Strange to run unopposed in the GOP primary. And if he had, the GOP would have held the seat.
Wouldn't have been unopposed. There was a runoff to get to the runoff.
brian wrote:Texas has never been able to mobilize Latino voters on any kind of huge scale compared to California, Nevada and New Mexico. I'm hoping there's a lot of boots on the ground doing that because I truly believe Texas can be got with these kind of tailwinds for the Dems. Beating Cruz would send a pretty huge message to the rest of the country.
ETA: And the irony of mobilizing Latinos to vote for a non-Latino over a Latino candidate is not lost on me and kind of proof of how fucked things are in general.
I'm pretty sure he's Latino.
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
Well, he's like fourth-generation El Pasoan, so I suspect he's got a bit of everything, but I don't know that I've seen that's his defining heritage. But in any event, the mobilization of the Latino vote is going to be huge not only in Texas, but everywhere given Trump's insane unpopularity with non-Cuban Latinos.
govmentchedda wrote:For some reason, I had it in my head that Beto's heritage was at least part Mexican. Probably because of the ATDI and El Paso background.
It could be because he's appropriated the spanish nickname (Which is probably a solid play in El Paso). Or maybe he has a latino lawyer.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
govmentchedda wrote:For some reason, I had it in my head that Beto's heritage was at least part Mexican. Probably because of the ATDI and El Paso background.
It could be because he's appropriated the spanish nickname (Which is probably a solid play in El Paso). Or maybe he has a latino lawyer.
El Paso's a fascinating place. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's probably a childhood nickname that stuck. Anglo and Latino cultures have been fully mixing there since the Mexican-American War if not longer.
Nonlinear FC wrote:I could almost have given him a pass if he'd just endorsed him once in a tweet, with the justification that "we can't have a liberal replace Sessions in the Senate." Just from a strategy and realpolitik angle. Still gross and reprehensible, but in 2017, it would've been a small dose of kerosene on the dumpster fire.
But, yeah, he went all in. Campaign rally in Pensacola was pushing all of his chips in the middle.
I think they'll get this tax bill passed, but the civil war in the GOP is coming or has already started. Some of the primaries (especially in swing states like Arizona and Nevada) are going to be insanely brutal between the TeaParty/Breitbart/alt-right nutters and the GOP establishment candidates.
ETA: I'll keep you guys up to speed (likely in the Politics thread) occasionally on the NV GOP primary for Heller's senate seat (Heller vs. Danny Tarkanian). It's already gotten nasty and there's months to go. It will likely also feature visits from Steve Bannon and his acolytes stumping for Tarkanian. Good times.
Saw a note flutter across one of the twitters today that the Repubs have massively fucked up in Cali by not having viable candidates for a few state-wide races in 2018. Which means fewer of their voters to the polls to pull the level for the house races, putting even more seats there in play than are already in play. Which is a lot.
tennbengal wrote:Saw a note flutter across one of the twitters today that the Repubs have massively fucked up in Cali by not having viable candidates for a few state-wide races in 2018. Which means fewer of their voters to the polls to pull the level for the house races, putting even more seats there in play than are already in play. Which is a lot.
At least one for sure (Rohrabacher's) and maybe as many as three of those Orange County seats are going to be blue for the first time in decades (if ever).
brian is saying that's what they would've preferred.
He is absolutely right, and the scenario down there was a nightmare for the GOP establishment in DC.
* - There were 3 candidates in the first run-off. I don't remember the dudes name, but McConnell and his strategists incorrectly calculated that Strange would win in a head-to-head with Moore, so they poured money in to knockout the third guy, who they didn't like.
* - That guy used the "Washington elites and McConnell are trying to steal this election" which was the first time McConnell was used in this fashion. That part of Trumpism is still very powerful in a primary. That dude got knocked out anyways, but...
* - Moore used the same strategy and by that point Strange was seen as being McConnell's boy and he was sunk.
Strange was treated as pretty much an incumbent by the RNC and leadership. They miscalculated in the beginning backing Strange and then doubled down by deciding late to back Moore.
Last edited by Nonlinear FC on Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
brian wrote:Don't bury the lede on who the biggest loser from last night is. It isn't Moore and it isn't the national GOP.
It's Trump. He could have distanced himself from Moore and let him sink or swim on his own. Presidents aren't required to campaign or endorse candidates in these elections. Trump is so convinced of his own popularity he thought he could swing the election to Moore by embracing him* and ultimately it could have been what did Moore in.
* - He should have learned this lesson at least a dozen times before already, most notably by seeing how the Alabama GOP voters reacted to his endorsement of Strange in the primary, but Trump is gonna Trump. He's not a genius or a wizard and his vanity and stupidity can be weaponized against him if the Dems are smart.
Eh, Trump already declared victory with a "See, I told you so" comment that he knew Moore couldn't win. Yet another example of his 5 year old mentality and inability to cope without framing himself as a winner. Sad.
The real loser here is Steve Bannon. Bannon went against Trump and the GOP establishment in pushing for Moore over Strange, which backfired bigly. Hopefully this will allow some moderate Republicans to grow a pair and push back against Bannon and the Alt-Right.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
brian wrote:The GOP didn't want Moore to run to begin with. I'm sure the Alabama GOP and national GOP would have been perfectly happy for Strange to run unopposed in the GOP primary. And if he had, the GOP would have held the seat.
Wouldn't have been unopposed. There was a runoff to get to the runoff.
brian is saying that's what they would've preferred.
He is absolutely right, and the scenario down there was a nightmare for the GOP establishment in DC.
* - There were 3 candidates in the first run-off. I don't remember the dudes name, but McConnell and his strategists incorrectly calculated that Strange would win in a head-to-head with Strange, so they poured money in to knockout the third guy, who they didn't like.
* - That guy used the "Washington elites and McConnell are trying to steal this election" which was the first time McConnell was used in this fashion. That part of Trumpism is still very powerful in a primary. That dude got knocked out anyways, but...
* - Moore used the same strategy and by that point Strange was seen as being McConnell's boy and he was sunk.
Strange was treated as pretty much an incumbent by the RNC and leadership. They miscalculated in the beginning backing Strange and then doubled down by deciding late to back Moore.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
mister d wrote:This feels like the rare "everyone wins" situation. I mean, Moore obviously doesn't and Trump doesn't, but the Dems do, Alabama does, "the people" do and I really think the Republicans do. They can now localize this saying "AL ran him, we had a party responsibility, we wouldn't have sat him" and give some distance except for the individuals who actively campaigned.
They can sure try. Except, for yaknow, all of them that went on the record being for it AND the RNC going back live in the last few weeks with money and other support. I think they can be made to eat this.
They're gonna eat it. People are paying attention.
What I'm saying is they have a clear spin. "Yes, we funded him, but we were funding an R seat. We never would have sat Moore." I guarantee that's an accepted as fact, by almost everyone, six months from now.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote:This feels like the rare "everyone wins" situation. I mean, Moore obviously doesn't and Trump doesn't, but the Dems do, Alabama does, "the people" do and I really think the Republicans do. They can now localize this saying "AL ran him, we had a party responsibility, we wouldn't have sat him" and give some distance except for the individuals who actively campaigned.
They can sure try. Except, for yaknow, all of them that went on the record being for it AND the RNC going back live in the last few weeks with money and other support. I think they can be made to eat this.
They're gonna eat it. People are paying attention.
What I'm saying is they have a clear spin. "Yes, we funded him, but we were funding an R seat. We never would have sat Moore." I guarantee that's an accepted as fact, by almost everyone, six months from now.
And if Moore were just a garden variety GOP idiot that might work. They're not going to be able to skate on endorsing/funding a pedophile.
ETA: Watch and see how many times "Roy Moore" is used in an attack ad to smear the GOP in a macro sense in the midterms.
I think this is where their combination of better messaging and a more gullible audience pays off. They don't have to deny they funded Moore, because they obviously can't, but they can say it was always about the seat and the Dems would have done the same and reference various Rs speaking out about him as proof the party didn't support the man. Write this shit in pen and then write over it in pen.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote:I think this is where their combination of better messaging and a more gullible audience pays off. They don't have to deny they funded Moore, because they obviously can't, but they can say it was always about the seat and the Dems would have done the same and reference various Rs speaking out about him as proof the party didn't support the man. Write this shit in pen and then write over it in pen.
But if the vote in Alabama shifted 15% or so (from Sessions' last opposed Senate race) won't it shift at least a few points elsewhere in the country?
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
I do think it'll shift a bit, but I don't think anything that's happened yet (holding NJ + VA and defeating a pedophile in AL) serves as indication of a national tide change. Maybe it does and I'm cynical/conservative, but until a seat with a "good" R changes hands I'm not buying.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
I don't really think the Senate is in play, but even holding 51/49 there would be a pretty amazing result considering the Dems are trying to maintain Dem seats in MO, ND and MT. If that happens and the House flips then that's a complete victory in 2018.
brian wrote:I don't really think the Senate is in play, but even holding 51/49 there would be a pretty amazing result considering the Dems are trying to maintain Dem seats in MO, ND and MT. If that happens and the House flips then that's a complete victory in 2018.
If the generic House ballot is really Dem +15 then I think they do have a shot at flipping the Senate, which would be insane.
tennbengal wrote:Saw a note flutter across one of the twitters today that the Repubs have massively fucked up in Cali by not having viable candidates for a few state-wide races in 2018. Which means fewer of their voters to the polls to pull the level for the house races, putting even more seats there in play than are already in play. Which is a lot.
At least one for sure (Rohrabacher's) and maybe as many as three of those Orange County seats are going to be blue for the first time in decades (if ever).
Gotta tear down the Orange Curtain.
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.
A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.
Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.
Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.
At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.
Shit. Show.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.
A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.
Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.
Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.
At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.
Shit. Show.
I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
HaulCitgo wrote:Seems like it's going to pass. Tax lawyers rejoice at the Christmas miracle!
Forget about Moore for a second. This is the shit it's going to be impossible for the GOP to live down on the campaign trail in 2018. I think back to the bravery that a lot of House Democrats showed in voting for the ACA knowing it would almost certainly mean the end of their careers in Congress. I assume very few, if any, regret that vote and I wonder how a lot of the Republicans who are voting themselves out of office with this bill will feel in 10 years or 20 years down the road. (They'll have a pile of cash to fall back on, but still. I assume some of them are capable of introspection and have some small sense of decency. I wonder if they'll feel like it was worth it.)
Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.
A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.
Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.
Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.
At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.
Shit. Show.
I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.
Tax bill passing will be a win for the Republicans no matter what, except for maybe Republicans in NY, NJ and CA. Most people will have less tax taken out of their paychecks, and not realize they will take a big hit when their deductions are much lower. By the time they prepare their taxes and realize they owe money, the 2018 elections will be over. Not to mention, Republicans will still blame the higher taxes on Dems and "entitlements," or say that it will take time for the tax cuts to trickle down from the wealthy. They will parlay the deficit increase into a call for massive cuts in social programs, which is what they ultimately want anyways. If they get that, they will argue that the defunded government programs don't work, because government is bad, then privatize everything. You fill the cabinet with incompetent people or people who deeply hate the agencies they run, then hold up the failures as an example of government being a bad solution.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.
A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.
Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.
Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.
At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.
Shit. Show.
I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.
Tax bill passing will be a win for the Republicans no matter what, except for maybe Republicans in NY, NJ and CA. Most people will have less tax taken out of their paychecks, and not realize they will take a big hit when their deductions are much lower. By the time they prepare their taxes and realize they owe money, the 2018 elections will be over. Not to mention, Republicans will still blame the higher taxes on Dems and "entitlements," or say that it will take time for the tax cuts to trickle down from the wealthy. They will parlay the deficit increase into a call for massive cuts in social programs, which is what they ultimately want anyways. If they get that, they will argue that the defunded government programs don't work, because government is bad, then privatize everything. You fill the cabinet with incompetent people or people who deeply hate the agencies they run, then hold up the failures as an example of government being a bad solution.
I'm honestly not sure if the paycheck effect will be that big. based on the polling, people seem to understand that they're gonna get screwed at the end of the year. if this plan was polling ~50%, I'd be more inclined to agree with it having minimal impact in 2018.
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
A 20% deduction for pass-through businesses. Pass-through businesses - in which the owner books profits as their income, like a limited liability corporation or S-corp - would get a 20% deduction on their income. This is more similar to the Senate version but less generous than its proposed 23% deduction.
Politics or not this sounds pretty good. Straight 20% haircut on income? I guess that's to offset the reduction in corporate tax rate?
Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.
A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.
Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.
Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.
At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.
Shit. Show.
I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.
Tax bill passing will be a win for the Republicans no matter what, except for maybe Republicans in NY, NJ and CA. Most people will have less tax taken out of their paychecks, and not realize they will take a big hit when their deductions are much lower. By the time they prepare their taxes and realize they owe money, the 2018 elections will be over. Not to mention, Republicans will still blame the higher taxes on Dems and "entitlements," or say that it will take time for the tax cuts to trickle down from the wealthy. They will parlay the deficit increase into a call for massive cuts in social programs, which is what they ultimately want anyways. If they get that, they will argue that the defunded government programs don't work, because government is bad, then privatize everything. You fill the cabinet with incompetent people or people who deeply hate the agencies they run, then hold up the failures as an example of government being a bad solution.
ETA. This is not what polling is showing. This is being perceived as a wealth transfer to the rich. There's no way to come back from that. Democrats know this all too well. Once it's been branded, you're fucked.
You don't have to trust me, but... Trust me. They are fucked.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Nonlinear FC wrote:ETA. This is not what polling is showing. This is being perceived as a wealth transfer to the rich. There's no way to come back from that. Democrats know this all too well. Once it's been branded, you're fucked.
You don't have to trust me, but... Trust me. They are fucked.
Just about everything I've read and seen agrees with you, I am just jaded as fuck, and I'm convinced the Republicans will keep on doing the same, and keep on getting away with it.
I feel like the GOP base will vote Republican no matter what. Look at Alabama. "Moore fucks children, but at least he isn't a Democrat." I constantly heard "Jones is weak on crime, and wants to kill all fetuses while the mother is in labor, especially if it's a Christian baby in a married family." (possibly paraphrased). Regardless of how polls are shown to be untrustworthy, it's enormous to have a tax cut deemed unpopular. I'm hoping you are right, but I have lost faith.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Syb, last night should have restored that faith. Even given all of that bullshit, in about the reddest state around, I now have a Democratic senator. Two years ago Roy wins that election by 25. The tide is shifting.
