Housekeeping (Messpocalypse 2016)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Mar 22, 2016.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Hoyer Makes an Obvious Point

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And so it is time to start paying attention to the House of Representatives. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD05) spoke with reporters on the Capitol steps earlier today; our report comes via Mike Lillis↱ of The Hill:

    Hoyer, the Democratic whip, said Trump's combative campaign — and the sharp GOP split over the merits of his bid — will alienate voters and fuel "substantial" gains for House Democrats at the polls.

    "Democrats are in good shape," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol. "I think we are, in fact, doing better. I think the environment is better for us. And I think we're going to pick up a substantial number of seats."

    Hoyer pointed to a New York Times survey released Tuesday that found 60 percent of Republicans are "mostly embarrassed" by their party's presidential campaign, while just 13 percent of Democratic respondents feel the same about the race between Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    "Why?" Hoyer asked. "Because on our side you have a very substantive debate between two obviously qualified candidates" ....

    .... Last Friday the Democrats got some good news when the Cook Political Report, a prominent online election handicapper, shifted 10 seats in its most-watched ratings columns, all in favor of the Democrats.

    "We think the Cook report reflects what we're seeing — that the environment in which this election's being held is moving toward the Democratic side," Hoyer said.

    Still, redistricting after the 2010 census broadly favored House Republicans. And even after last week's ratings shift, the Cook team put only 18 House Republican seats on their most-vulnerable list — a dozen shy of the 30 seats the Democrats would need to win back the House.

    The report also considers the idea of Trump as "such a wild-card candidate" that his downticket effect is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to predict.

    Still, though, it was mere weeks ago I told liberals pining for across-the-board tax increases and 5.3% GDP growth―neither of which is generally considered possible―to deliver me the House of Representatives. The point was intended as an illustration of the challenge about pitching higher taxes and fantasy-league GDP growth; neither Sanders nor Clinton can deliver the House.

    Republicans, though ....

    The thing is that many are still trying to wrap their heads around the dimensions of the Senate contest; the windows already rattled. The idea that the House of Representatives is truly in play ought to crack a few panes.

    13 February ― With talk of Republican vulnerability in the Senate swirling, Molly K. Hooper↱ of The Hill asked two prominent House Democrats if they could win back a majority in the chamber; Reps. Jim Clyburn (D-SC06) and Xavier Becerra (D-CA34) both gave middling answers intended to sound positive, resulting in a weak headline: "Dems: GOP nominee could help us win House".

    18 March ― Widely respected Cook Political report publishes a stunning report: "House Republicans Staring Into the Abyss: 10 Ratings Changes Favor Democrats"↱, suggesting a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives is within the realm of possibility.

    21 March ― This is the week the mainstream media figures it out; Steve Benen↱ of msnbc, responded to the Cook Report by advising the obvious caution, but also noting, "the fact that this is even a topic of conversation should send chills down the spines of Republican officials". This was one among many articles appearing yesterday in response to the Friday report.

    22 March ― House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer speaks with cautious confidence↱ about the possibility of a Democratic majorty, as detailed above.​

    Alright. I am now paying attention to the House races. The conventional wisdom about redistricting and gerrymandering is apparently shaking down; only the GOP itself could set this possibility to life.

    Maybe they really need a weirdly-styled hero epic; perhaps they are so caught up in some warped cinematic fantasy they aren't happy unless everything feels apocalyptic.

    But even Democratic supporters know that living plots never play out as neatly as their literary kin; they can see ways in which this still goes badly for themselves. One wonders if Republicans can genuinely believe likewise.

    Still, this shouldn't be happening.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "The fight for congressional control takes an unexpected turn". msnbc. 21 March 2016. msnbc.com. 22 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1ZkGBqS

    Hooper, Molly K. "Dems: GOP nominee could help us win House". The Hill. 13 February 2016. TheHill.com. 22 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1nDt9k0

    Lillis, Mike. "Hoyer: Trump nomination would bring Dems 'substantial' gains". The Hill. 22 March 2016. TheHill.com. 22 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1q0Cwfo

    Wasserman, David. "House Republicans Staring Into the Abyss: 10 Ratings Changes Favor Democrats". The Cook Political Report. 18 March 2016. CookPolitical.com. 22 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1RhPMp2
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Gerry Manders Back

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    There is no rule that says the title absolutely must make sense.

    Meanwhile, in real news the ongoing discussion about the House of Representatives―our American institutional equivalent of Cousin Oliver's anal fistula in that episode of The Brady Bunch that never aired because nobody ever thought to make it―Sean Illing↱ of Salon answers on behalf of gerrymandering as the reason why a Trump nomination won't cost the GOP its lower chamber majority:

    Last Friday, the Cook Political Report downgraded the GOP's chances in 10 congressional districts. Overall, Cook rates 31 Republican seats as at risk―that's not nearly enough if the Democrats want to retake the House, but it's far more sanguine than anyone expected a year ago. Ultimately, though, the prospects of transforming the balance of power in Congress remain vanishingly slim, even against the backdrop of a Trump candidacy.

    Lost in the Democratic optimism is a rather frustrating fact: Were it not for Republican gerrymandering, the potential to flip Congress would be considerably greater. The truth is that the GOP's control of Congress is itself a scandal. Consider this: Obama won a second term in 2012. He was the fourth president in the last hundred years to win two elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Furthermore, Democratic congressional candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican opponents in 2012. And yet Republicans lost only eight seats that year. In a remotely representative system, such results would not be possible.

    Something like 55 percent of America's congressional districts have been redrawn to favor the GOP, while a paltry 10 percent have been redrawn to favor Democrats. It's difficult to overstate how anti-Democratic that is. Republicans have essentially short-circuited the Democratic process. They've used advanced technology and algorithms based on the most recent census data to redraw borders and create the safest districts possible. As Karl Rove, who backs the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which has spearheaded the gerrymandering campaign, wrote in 2010, "He who controls redistricting can control Congress." And that's what they've done―control Congress by controlling district boundaries. It's the only reason why Republican influence in Congress doesn't scale with GOP support nationwide.

    There are actually two issues here. First is the question of whether gerrymandering is enough to hold the line for Republicans, and part of the question of Democratic optimism ought to account for this. Naturally, Mr. Illing is smarter than all those people, and has thought of this while it simply could not possibly have occurred to professional political hands.

    Democratic optimism vis-à-vis the House, as it reaches the public presently, consists of two primary components. First is a sales job by Democratic politicians, players, and surrogates; this much is obvious. Less conveniently for those in the press who wish to dampen Democratic optimism is the other factor, the press itself, which will play this question up regardless of its merit for the sake of a potentially sensational headline. Messrs. Becerra and Clyburn, aforementioned↑, were far less definitive last month than the headline from The Hill―"Dems: GOP nominee could help us win House"―suggests. That is to say, the question was asked, they didn't say "no", and this is the headline that resulted. Illing approaches wisdom in noting that the Cook Report, also aforementioned, "downgraded the GOP's chances in 10 congresional districts". It is less clear, though, what he means in pointing out that Cook rated thriry-one GOP seats at risk, but "that's not nearly enough if the Democrats want to retake the House". Actually, it is enough, with one to spare. And therein lies the question; it's not nearly enough unless someone wants to predict Democrats winning thirty of those thirty-one seats, but that's the thing, they need thirty.

    And yes, Democrats have done it before, and not so long ago. But that was 2006, and what have you done for me, lately?

    But this is also a point where the question of redistricting and gerrymandering comes back into play; as Steve Benen↱ cautioned yesterday:

    Flipping 30 House seats is extremely difficult. In 2012, for example, President Obama won with relative ease; Democratic turnout was decent; and when all was said and done, House Dem candidates earned more actual votes than House Republican candidates. But when the 113th Congress convened, Democrats still controlled 201 seats―17 shy of a majority.

    Yes, House Dems flipped 30 seats in 2006―an anti-Bush wave year for the party―but it's even more difficult now because of 2010 redistricting, with several states stacking the deck in the GOP's favor to an almost ridiculous degree.

    Which brings us back to Illing, who slugs his article with a declaration that "Republicans have abused the democratic process by redrawing roughly 55% of districts to favor them", and closes by accusing that the GOP has "rigged the system in advance", which in turn is "the real scandal".

    There are certain things about the redistricting process that always seem scandalous, and, yes, the GOP attempted some very low tactics this time around. But if we want to make a scandal out of it all, we might also point out that at least since the rise of the DLC, Democrats have gotten very good at winning statewide races while failing to achieve any consistent success in local elections. Democrats and their supporters ought to find it scandalous that the Party has failed to better position itself in the last two redistricting cycles.

    Nonetheless, this murmur and buzz is around for a reason; it didn't catch last month when a reporter from The Hill tried to build a headline out of two brief video clips with House Democrats. It's catching this time because it's the Cook Political Report; Illing notes the situation is "far more sanguine than anyone expected a year ago", while Benen argues, "the fact that this is even a topic of conversation should send chills down the spines of Republican officials".

    And that, in turn, is why we hear of Democratic optimism. I don't think the fact of a steep climb is "lost in the Democratic optimism", but, rather, the notion that this pathway is even open in this abysmal season is itself at the heart of that hope.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "The fight for congressional control takes an unexpected turn". msnbc. 21 March 2016. msnbc.com. 22 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1ZkGBqS

    Illing, Sean. "The travesty of Republican gerrymandering: Why Donald Trump's nomination should — but probably won't — cost the GOP its congressional majority". Salon. 22 March 2016. Salon.com. 22 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1UEu1mV
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Iowa Republican Calls for Recession

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To the one, there are whispers that it is at least possible for Democrats to take the House of Representatives in November. To the other, we really ought not get our hopes up.

    In October, less than a year into his congressional career, Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) raised a curious complaint: the economy in and around the nation’s capital, he said, was simply too good. After taking a picture of several DC-area construction cranes, the Iowa Republican said via Twitter, “We need to cause a recession … in Washington DC.”

    This week, the same congressman repeated the same call, complaining about the excessive health of inside-the-Beltway economic development. “DC needs a recession,” Blum said on Monday, alongside another picture of construction cranes. (The congressman sent this from both his personal Twitter account and his congressional account.)


    (Benen↱)

    To the beeblebrox, though, is this sneaking suspicion that the Republican loathing for government and governance asserts itself as some manner of neurotic symptom. I've got that line about how Republicans are halfway right, that government does not work when Republicans are in charge; and as Benen suggests:

    It’s worth noting that if Blum is irritated driving around the DC area and seeing so much economic activity, voters may relieve him of this burden in the fall. The Republican congressman barely won his 2014 race in Iowa’s most Democratic congressional district, and he’s considered one of the House’s more vulnerable incumbents in 2016.

    It's easy enough to imagine the congressman from Iowa's First just doesn't like his job.

    So, yeah. That's one. Twenty-nine more to go.

    Oh, right. Iowa is the state that elected Joni Ernst to the U.S. Senate; we probably shouldn't count Mr. Blum out.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "House Republican pushes pro-recession message". msnbc. 25 March 2016. msnbc.com. 25 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1ZA343k
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    A Boasting Confession

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It wasn't so long ago I happened to mention↗ the occasion Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turazi (R-28) boasted that the Keystone State voter ID law would "allow Mitt Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania"↗.

    I don't know, it seems relevant, in no small part because it just happened again:

    A Republican congressman on Tuesday night acknowledged that the new law requiring a photo ID to vote in Wisconsin could help Republican candidates at the polls in the general election.

    "I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up. And now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well," Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI), a supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), told Milwaukee television station TMJ4 when asked how either Cruz or Donald Trump could win in November.


    (MacNeal↱)

    It's one thing to wonder, as I often do, about Republicans being unable to maintain their own nodding, winking tacitry; the idea that they might be comfortable speaking these customarily verboten arguments is another entirely.

    It's some sort of squeaky-wheel approach; the idea is that if a small group of people make enough noise, the fact of that clamor becomes significant in itself.

    It's one of the reasons notions of progress are so slow. What, do we need to convince eighty-five percent of the people that this or that sacrifice knowingly made to a failure of principle isn't worth it? No, seriously, what is the threshold?

    And consider notions like racism and misogyny; society really doesn't want to let these go. What polling result do we need to tell the holdouts society isn't listening anymore?

    To the other, there is this notion of undermining democracy, and what is the significance when restricting in order to harm one's political opposition is an acceptably arguable talking point? What is the public opinion split on this? 55-45? 60-40? Let's try the abstract: Would we find different results if the question is asked as a general principle―constricting voter eligibility in order to suppress the opposition―compared to a specific construction―Republicans passing disingenuous voter ID laws according to a debunked potsherd conspiracy theory relying on the defamatory presupposition that Democrats require fraud in order to win elections? For what reason would that latter be any more acceptable? Would we find higher rejection of the general principle than the specific construction?

    And here we find Republicans shamelessly depending on the principle.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    MacNeal, Caitlin. "GOP Rep.: Wisconsin Voter ID Law Will Help Republicans In General Election". Talking Points Memo. 6 April 2016. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 6 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1MeBAhJ
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Brief Notes: R&G/Roll Call on Wisconsin, Florida

    Nathan L. Gonzales↱ of Roll Call noted on Monday that the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call rating for Wisconsin 8, presently held by retiring Rep. Reid Ribble (R), has changed from "Republican Favored" to "Pure Tossup".

    Part of the change owes to the candidacy of Tom Nelson, presently Outagamie County Executive; the preferred candidate for his Democratic Party, "GOP sources admitted that Nelson would be a formidable foe", according to Gonzales.

    Nelson, the former state Assembly majority leader who also ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor, wasn’t guaranteed to run for Congress. He is also viewed as a potential candidate for governor in 2018. But unlike the district’s previous Democratic congressman, Steve Kagen, Nelson has an extensive voting record to be examined and litigated by Republicans. Kagen was a doctor.

    Republicans are headed for a competitive primary on Aug. 9 between former Foreign Relations Committee staffer and Scott Walker foreign policy aide Mike Gallagher and state Sen. Frank Lasee. The filing deadline is June 1.

    It's still a long way to November.

    † † †​

    Meanwhile, Gonzales↱ today considered four congressional districts in Florida and Virginia. Redistricting in the Sunshine State brings change. In the Tenth and Thirteenth, Democrats are looking at likely pickups:

    The court-mandated redrawing of Florida’s congressional map changed the 13th District from a competitive district to a Democratic-leaning seat that President Barack Obama won with 55 percent of the vote in 2012.

    Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist is running for the 13th District as a Democrat. This after a failed run for Senate as a Republican and then Independent in 2010, and an unsuccessful run for governor as a Democrat in 2014. Crist is the favorite in the Aug. 30 Democratic primary against former Department of Defense official Eric Lynn.

    Current seat holder GOP Rep. David Jolly decided not to seek re-election, even before the new map was finalized, and is running for Republican Marco Rubio’s open Senate seat instead.

    Some GOP strategists believed Baker’s bipartisan appeal would keep the seat in play (and Crist has lost races he was supposed to win before). But without Baker, Republicans won’t be spending money trying to keep this seat in the fall.

    We’re changing The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call rating from Lean Democratic to Safe for Democrats.

    Again, it's a long way to November; the dynamic in the Tenth is a little more straightforward; Rep. Rich Nugent (R-11) is retiring; Rep. Daniel Webster, who currently holds the Tenth, will seek re-election in the Eleventh. Gonzales notes that Florida Ten went for President Obama in 2012; the seat is now rated "Safe for Democrats".

    In Virginia, the Fourth Congressional district is considered "Safe for Democrats"; sitting incumbent Rep. J. Randy Forbes finds himself running for re-election in the Second. But redistrdicting will most likely cost Democrats in the Second, which is its own weird story, but Rep. Gwen Graham (D) is essentially in limbo. Heading in, the Second Congressional District is rated "Republican Favored".

    "For now," writes Gonzales, "House Democrats will likely net two seats out of the 30 they need for a majority."
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Gonzales, Nathan. "Democrats Likely to Bank Trio of GOP House Seats". Roll Call. 14 April 2016. RollCall.com. 14 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1qsY8B7

    —————. "Open Wisconsin GOP Seat Shifts to Tossup". Roll Call. 11 April 2016. RollCall.com. 14 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1qsY8B7
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Oo-ooh! That Smell! Can't You Smell That Smell?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "This inevitability of this outcome is dawning on Republicans everywhere. What you are smelling is primal fear. They can see it coming, an inevitable tidal wave sweeping them from power. The Senate: Gone. The House: Gone."


    I loathe landslide talk. It's dangerous.

    In the first place, this is Hillary Clinton; she has powerful negatives in polling.

    In the second, this is Hillary Clinton; she seeks to be the first female president in the history of a country that traditionally hates women.

    In the third, these are Americans; we hate landslides. We have a strange need for dualism and equivalence whereby obvious questions sometimes become fifty-fifty. And we're good at it.

    Hillary Clinton will win the presidency; of that I am confident.

    A landslide? It should be a healthy college victory overstating a reasonably healthy popular victory, and yes, the Democrats should be able to win the Senate.

    The House, though?

    No, we're not seeing that kind of landslide.

    I'll happily eat that last, if it turns out to be wrong, but despite what passes for conservative explanations I still don't quite understand 2014; while conventional wisdom has its place, the general overview often fails to account for weird contrarian and counterintuitive factors. Remember that Americans are a people who, in the face of escalating petroleum prices and a crisis in oil production―e.g., a war―suddenly decide we all want to drive big automobiles with huge, gas-guzzling engines, like Hummers and that freaking Ford that was too big to fit in a parking garage. I don't expect Hillary Clinton to hit 60-40. I think the Democrats can take the Senate; I can't tell you right now that they will. And the House? That's a pipe dream I'd love to suck.

    The thing is that Richard Brodsky↱ is a senior fellow at Demos, which might not be the best among Democratic-oriented think tanks, but also is nowhere near the worst. In any case, he ought to know better than to say that.

    I know it feels good, but come on. This is important. We can celebrate all we want in the morning, but holy shit, dude, the first task is to make it through the night.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Brodsky, Richard. "I Smell a Landslide". The Huffington Post. 6 June 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 7 June 2016. http://huff.to/1UE0Vll
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    In the interests of keeping this thread from continuing to be your personal blog, I thought I'd offer something in the way of an explanation of Rep Blum's statement.

    There are still some among us who believe in the principles our nation was founded upon. To be specific, I'm speaking of limited government. When we see headlines such as this:

    Map: The Astonishing Concentration of High-Income Earners Around Washington, D.C.

    We see it as emblematic of an out of control government. A government that grows without limit like a cancer and consumes the wealth of our nation to enrich itself while leaving the rest of us that much poorer and saddled with a debt that can never be paid.

    Therefore, causing a recession in Washington D.C. is like cutting off the blood supply to a tumor. One should not lament the lack of growth of the tumor, but rather celebrate the increased health of the rest of the body.

    Anyway, that one way of looking at it.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Dude, you're way late to this party. The fantastic influx of lobbying operations and influence money into DC jumpstarted by the Reagan administration has been a staple of lefty Cassandras for a long, long time. Where did you think these Citizen's United protected operations were setting up shop, anyway?

    If you didn't want this, why did you keep voting for it?
    It's a brain tumor. Good luck cutting off it's blood supply.

    Meanwhile, in the interest of ordinary discourse: notice that the wealthiest people don't necessarily live in the wealthiest counties, by and large nationwide, and the DC area wealthy counties have close neighbors of significantly lower class. Try to think of why that might be. Hint: what surrounds the traditional aristocrat's estate - who lives on the other side of the gate and the wall, often in the same county - prosperous employees of productive corporations?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Time Out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We might reasonably wonder if this is significant:

    Three-term Republican Tim Huelskamp lost his primary to OB-GYN Roger Marshall in the sprawling 1st District of Kansas Tuesday night.

    With 72 percent of precincts reporting, Marshall led Huelskamp 57 to 43 percent.

    Huelskamp rode the tea party wave to Congress in 2010 and quickly angered Washington Republicans. A member of the House Freedom Caucus, he earned a reputation as a troublemaker.

    And the headline from Simone Pathé↱ of Roll Call?

    Establishment-backed Republican Unseats House Freedom Caucus Member

    Mr. Huelskamp is only the fourth House incumbent to lose a primary contest this season, reminding of the adage about how they say throw the bums out but vote for their own member of Congress, anyway. In a year purportedly defined by voter dissatisfaction with the Establishment and status quo, Congressional incumbents are faring quite well.

    The Distinguished Gentleman from Kansas' First Congressional District joins indicted Democrat Chaka Fattah (PA02), redistricted Republican Randy J. Forbes (VA04), and apparently punished Republican Renee Ellmers (NC02), whose critics find her insufficiently faithful to conservative assertions of male supremacy↱.

    What makes the Kansas Republican's primary loss significant is that while, for instance, McClatchy↱ might suggest in reportage that the difference between Rep. Huelskamp and Dr. Roger Marshall was "more in personality than politics", the challenger is, as the headline suggests, the "Establishment-backed" candidate. Pathé explains:

    This year, however, agricultural groups in Kansas who had remained neutral in the primary two years ago backed Huelskamp's challenger. The Kansas Farm Bureau, the Livestock Association and the National Sorghum Producer's Association all backed Marshall.

    Ending Spending Action Fund targeted Huelskamp with TV ads saying he was a "20-year politician," not a farmer. In a statement sent out even before the AP had called the race Tuesday night, ESAFund took credit for Huelskamp's defeat.

    "People regularly overuse the word 'historic'―but this actually is. Incumbents very rarely lose, which tells us that voters are demanding that Republicans in Congress work together to advance a fiscally conservative agenda to actually end out-of-control spending―not just grandstand," said ESAFund President Brian Baker.

    The pro-business Chamber of Commerce also backed Marshall.

    "Governing was on the ballot in KS-1 and voters spoke clearly," National Political Director Rob Engstrom said in a statement Tuesday night.

    The anti-tax Club for Growth Action, Americans for Prosperity, the National Rifle Association and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz supported Huelskamp.

    As portents go, this is hardly the clearest of signs. Nonetheless, the merest suggestion that Republicans in Kansas just turned back a member of the insurgent right probably should not be ignored.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Pathé, Simone. "Establishment-backed Republican Unseats House Freedom Caucus Member". Roll Call. 2 August 2016. RollCall.com. 2 August 2016. http://bit.ly/2aMo5s0

    Tate, Curtis. "Tea party Rep. Tim Huelskamp heading to defeat in Kansas Republican primary". McClatchy DC. 2 August 2016. McClatchyDC.com. 2 Augsut 2016. http://bit.ly/2agVs6x
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This could be very significant. Huelskamp was as hard right as you can get. His district covers most of Kansas. Huelskamp is Canadian Ted kind of guy. He refused to negotiate with anyone. It was Tea Party dogma always. The election was a dirty as you can get. Huelskamp accused his opponent of being a criminal. It was just down right nasty. His opponent ran on a platform of negotiation and cooperation in Washington DC - the exact opposite of what Huelskamp did. And for that reason this is interesting. Huelskamp lost in a landslide. So is this indicative of a change fundamental change within the Republican Party? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    The Kochs pumped a lot of money into the Huelskamp campaign.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Grapevine buzz right now is that Kansas voters might have had enough of Gov. Brownback's (ahem!) experiment. Something like eleven far conservatives went down yesterday in the Sunflower State.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Indeed, they have. I live in Kansas and I don't know anyone who likes Brownback. But that's not new. They haven't liked him for many years now, and these are hardcore redneck tobacco chewing Republicans.

    It was a solid win for the so called "moderate" faction of the Republican Party. Brownback's job approval numbers have been very bad for a very long time. Yet he and his followers in the state legislature and other state offices kept inexplicably winning elections even when all the polling indicated they would lose.

    Then we had statistician Dr. Beth Clarkson who began noticing statistical polling irregularities in the election results and attempted to gain access to the ballots in order to investigate those anomalies. But the state which was and is so concerned about voter fraud that it disenfranchised thousands of Kansans because they might not be legal residents, wasn't willing to let Dr. Clarkson conduct and investigation of the state's voting processes in order to ensure the integrity of voting system. The state successfully fought her in court and prevented her from conducting an investigation of the state's voting systems. But Dr. Clarkson was able to get the state to commit to more transparency in future elections. This was the first election held under the new transparency rules. So it makes you wonder.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    E'volution (Establishment Revolution)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I cannot figure to what degree it is significant that Republicans find themselves so tapped for talent they're about to send another Cheney to Congress↱.

    Intellectually and morally bereft. Isn't that the phrase?

    Although it does present a fascinating question: How much of the GOP's woes could be alleviated to some significant degree if the phrase "decent human being" appeared anywhere among their criteria for recruiting candidates?

    How is it that the Tea Party "revolution" brought us nothing but a flea circus of unvetted screwups and a steady enough trickle of traditional talent as to remind that these grass roots always were astroturf.

    Or, as campaign finance attorney Paul H. Jossey↱ explained over the weekend:

    As we watch the Republican Party tear itself to shreds over Donald Trump, perhaps it’s time to take note of another conservative political phenomenon that the GOP nominee has utterly eclipsed: the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered—and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.

    What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.

    The article for Politico is titled, "How We Killed the Tea Party"; Mr. Jossey slugs it home:

    Greedy super PACs drained the movement with endless pleas for money to support “conservative” candidates—while instead using the money to enrich themselves. I should know. I worked for one of them.

    It's exactly as skeezy as it sounds, of course, and we can always afford a dubious shaking of the head to these salvationist confessions failing to demonstrate any real empathy toward swindled marks. Indeed, Mr. Jossey does not seem particularly sorry, and would appear to simply be framing the optics in hopes of tweaking the metrics transitioning into a new messaging dynamic. Or, in plain English, it looks like just another day at the office for the lawyer whose job it is to fleece the ignorant.

    However, this whole thing comes 'round that in Wyoming, at least, the way forward for the insurgency is to go back to the Establishment future. Barring such disaster traditionally described as "act of God", Liz Cheney will take the oath in January, returning Wyoming's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to its proper place, within the family. The insurgent future is the resurgent dynasty.

    Or maybe the muff-diving panda↱ should have been a clue? You know, four years in, and the best they can come up with is sexually harassing interns and making Hillary-themed lesbian furry propaganda?

    And what was that, two months after Dick Armey staged an armed coup at his own freaking "Tea Party" PAC that, in the end, turned out to be a cash grab?

    But, yeah, you know how it goes. In an anti-establishment year, the thing to do is send another Cheney to Congress. And that's all well and fine in and of itself. Maybe this is what the Equality State can find for talent among Republicans. It's just, you know, the number of ways in which this all tends to lead straight back to the Establishment itself.

    The bottom line, I guess, is that Republicans will hold Wyoming, and another day in the conservative insurgency is just another day in the GOP.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "Liz Cheney appears to be on her way to Congress". msnbc. 17 August 2016. msnbc.com. 17 August 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2b0WSAD

    Jossey, Paul H. "How We Killed the Tea Party". Politico. 14 August 2016. Politico.com. 17 August 2016. http://politi.co/2aTF38l
     

Share This Page