Koz, I think your point of view fails to take into account the whole “throw the bums out” phenomenon.
No, that's actually kind of the point.
Ie, in your context, there will be too many "bums" to "throw out" by voting Demo, and so whoever wants to throw the bums out is going to be looking to support this Republican in order to get rid of that Republican.
I recall hearing about the imminent annihilation of the Republican Party after 2008. And again after 2012. I put as much stock in portents of the imminent annihilation of the Democratic Party after 2024.
Yeah, yeah that could be true, but the flip side is also true and for me at least much more interesting, mostly because I don't think very much of our political culture has internalized it yet. The Left especially, but also our team for that matter.
Ie, libs understand that they might lose any particular election, but still they take for granted that they'll always at least have a seat at the table, at least rhetorically, and at any time they only need to catch a break or two to be back in power, at least somewhere.
And in truth it has been that way for 25 years or so, at least. But it doesn't have to be that way of necessity, and it's not heading that way now.
As a parenthetical, I think it's important to differentiate between 2022 and 2024, because imo the Demos are in a much different position from one cycle to the next. For this cycle it's baked in the cake, the voters have made up their mind, in fact been made up for a while, and they're just simply going to ignore whatever the Demos try to sell them. This has been pretty clearly demonstrated by Ukraine. Biden and the Demos are gifted a big issue, completely dominating our narrative, where Biden's actions and been reasonably popular and theoretically ought to get the benefit of a rally round the flag effect. But look at what's happened: Biden gained two points worth of job approval and then lost them straight back again. The voters are completely capable to say, "Demos, you're good with Ukraine but I'm still going to vote against you anyway."
2024 is much different. After Demos take a beating in 2022 there's some catharsis, and voters will have an open mind if Demos want to avail themselves to use it.
In any event, I'm glad you commented, because you in particular were one of the sort of people I was thinking about about. Let's suppose that after the 2024 cycle, GOP has 63 Senators, 250 Congressmen, and Ron DeSantis is President (not at all a ridiculous hypothetical btw). To the extent you can answer, how are you going affiliate yourself in our political culture?
Are you going to be a dead-end Demo? Are you going to look for some Chris Sununu/Glenn Youngkin/Charlie Baker style Republicans to affiliate with? Are you going to ignore politics altogether? Will you join a third party/new party?
Alas, Ohio is a reddening state that Trump won by eight points in ’20. But take heart, comrades! Sherrod Brown won re-election in ’18 by seven points… as an incumbent. Still, maybe it isn’t completely hopeless for a Democrat after all!
None of it is going to matter. GOP will win the seat no matter who gets nominated.
As of now, and basically for the last year, there's two fixed stars in the American political firmament: GOP will control the House after the 2022 cycle, and GOP will control the Senate after the 2024 cycle. What's not known is the overall trajectory of the parties starting the 2024 cycle and thereafter.
We've gotten used to the idea that the two major parties are roughly in balance, for most of us it's difficult to imagine the idea that it could be any other way. But it absolutely can. There is nothing at all to guarantee that the Democratic Party will still exist in a meaningful way in 5-10 years. IMO this will largely be a function of the 2024 Presidential election and the Dems will have some very important and very difficult decisions to make in that cycle as to what they want to be and who they want to represent.
No he didn't, but the US (and European, primarily but not only German) energy policy has increased the price of natural gas and other forms of energy and left Europe vulnerable to energy blackmail.
This creates a favorable environment for Putin to try aggressive foreign policy gambits, eg, invading Ukraine.
Afghanistan is part of the mix, but just a small part.
The biggest complaint specifically against American Demos is energy policy. But, there's more complaints against Germany, and specifically Merkel, who isn't an American Demo of course but the nature of the complaints means she's a useful proxy for American Dems. And of course the idea that we shouldn't have indicated the intention to add Ukraine to NATO, etc. which tbh was W's thing more than anybody. But for the populist part of the GOP, that shoe fits well enough too.
Basically. There have been some Right or conservative complaints to say that things Biden or Demos have done are what's created to aggravated the problem in the first place. Those complaints are legit, for the most part.
But as far as what the President and the Administration has done since the crisis became imminent or since the invasion itself, I really can't find any fault at all.
Basically what the Biden Administration has done so far. Ie, we can pile up arbitrarily large sanctions against Russia or weapons and munitions to Ukraine. But we're going to avoid direct US/Russia or NATO/Russia military conflict.
What we really should be talking about is the actions the US made that contributed to Russia’s invasion.
Without having seen the video in the link, these kind of arguments tend to be red herrings for me. Nobody really does a good job of arguing the counterfactual: we wouldn't be having significant problems with Russia, but for expansion of NATO, other grievances, blah blah.
Speaking just for myself, I was, pre-invasion, interested to find an accommodation for Russia's interests and perceptions, but that was then. I am completely uninterested in them now. Even if Russia's motivations are or were at some level legitimate, they still don't remotely justify what they have done, so what's the point?
Yeah, I find explanations like this to not differentiate very much. Tucker didn't build his reputation or his audience on Russia, and those things were worth piles of money from Fox.
I suspect said the things he said probably because he believed them. And to repeat from the prior comment, the Tucker line on Russia was credible in 2017. It's not credible now.
I don't really watch Fox News very much so I don't know all the particulars of this. But, it is pretty clear that Tucker has lost a lot of reputational capital behind this Russia business.
I was with him for a while. I remember he had Max Boot on as a guest early in the Trump Administration, and by the standard of the conventional wisdom at the time, he was a relatively pro-Russia pundit. it was a very contentious segment, and I thought Tucker clearly got the better of the argument.
But we're not in those times now. It wasn't clear then than Russia was our enemy, it was even less clear that Russia was necessarily our enemy. But since then, of course, Russia has done things that dramatically changes their stature in the world, and includes our bilateral relationship and many other things besides.
Basically, Tucker got sandbagged by Putin like everybody else. He would be better off eating some crow (and I think he may have eaten a tiny bit of it), but doubling down on his prior positions seems to be throwing good money after bad.
It's not about heightening the contradictions, in fact it's just the opposite. It's also not about policy, the intention is to operate on a deeper level than that.
Ie, instead of having to project this posture of hostility and animosity, that libs can dial it down a little bit and try to rebuild stores of solidarity with conservatives, Republicans, Americans in general.
It's the right thing to do, #1, but it also has an element of pragmatism as well, where in a circumstance where you're already getting rolled, you might as well get some goodwill out of it.
And as it relates to the OP, I'm obviously not a third party guy. But if I were. my scenario is by far the best road to get there. It's obviously much more practical than things like abolishing the Senate and multi-member Congressional districts.
Actually, the best way to get a significant third party is to vote Republican (and in fact there's a decent chance of this happening over the next few years).
The GOP has to execute its two-cycle two-step: crush the Demos in the House in 2022 and win +4 in the Senate (not completely baked into the cake but heading there), then win the Presidency in 2024 (probably DeSantis) and pile on a bunch more Senate seats.
When and if that happens, do you think Elie Mystal and David Roberts are going to be full of sweetness and light for Conor Lamb and Maggie Hassan (and vice-versa)? No, of course not, the only reason they can keep it together now is because there is enough credibility to think that they can beat the Republicans if they hold together. But if they can't, I don't see much motivation to play nice.
Ergo, the Demos will crack up and the we'll see some third parties.
For old times' sake, I went back and looked at comments at that link, and there were certainly a couple things where I was wrong. But for the most part, I like what wrote there.
What’s really interesting is that Mr. Biden’s approval rating is coming back up in that poll. As well as on each of the issues where Fox is measuring his approval. That’s not a sign of a nation souring on the president or his party.
Over the course of the Biden Presidency, the President's approval rating has dropped, basically from 56% to 40%, as you can see in the chart above.
If I were super-motivated to make a visual for this, I'd screenshot this, and get out a virtual magic marker to show where your poll fits. But I'm not, so we'll just have to do.
In any event, there is a little micro-bump basically from 40.5% to 41% in the RCP aggregate around Jan 21-22 (it's the Biden's last bump in the chart as it stands now). That's what your poll is buying you.
It's really worthwhile to click the link to see the scale of Biden's unpopularity relative to his "bounce" in your poll. It's just barely visible if you know what you're looking for. There's no way you'd ever think it's important if you're taking any remotely reasonable perspective of public opinion of President Biden and the Democratic Party he represents.
Btw, it's either interesting or amusing as you choose, but Fox News is probably the best pollster in America with a Demo-favored house effect.
Because last I checked, I’m as real an American as you are, both by birth – or so the Constitution tells us – and by my desire to see a better stronger America.
No Philip, that's not the way it works for lib activists in America today. It ought to, but it doesn't. And it's good that you want to be an exception, but really you're not.
For example, the most recent previous time we corresponded, you cheapshotted Mitch McConnell talking about how "blacks" voted a such a rate, comparable to "Americans" who voted at a similar or lower rate. It's obviously the sort of thing that everybody has learned to ignore, just one more glop of sludge in our SuperFund of lib cultural pollution.
But today, let's actually look at it for a sec. We don't care about these kinds of throwaway jabs very much but the idea is that is Mitch McConnell is somehow discredited from defeating the Administration's legislative priorities pertaining to reconciliation or voting rights or whatever because he's racist. And that it an attempt to undermine the self-determination of the American people, who sometimes when the stars align, are perfectly willing and capable of empowering people like Mitch McConnell to do exactly that. So if your typical mode of expression is to undermine the self-determination of the American people, and yours is Philip, other Americans can see that and make intelligent inferences about you and the people you are ideologically simpatico with.
71% of Americans want Congress to keep investigating the attack. 41% approves of the job the president is doing. I know its hard to conceive, but Americans – all of us – are capable of holding both those beliefs at the same time.
Well yes, Congress isinvestigating January 6, go have at it. They've even found some stuff, either from the investigation itself or contemporaneously with it. First there was the Eastman memo, and now there's this draft Trump Executive Order.
Continue investigating for all I care. The mainstream media will certainly cover it. If somehow, Trump or his people are criminally charged, or taken out of play for the 2024 cycle, you're probably doing the GOP a favor.
But, it has to be plumb obvious by now the whole subject is simply not registering for real Americans. It's just not.
This has happened for a number of reasons: inflation, covid, CRT, school closures, Afghanistan, immigration, etc, etc. These are what's important, in some order. January 6 simply doesn't register, and there's nothing in your comment or citation that changes any of this. And tbh Philip I have to believe you know this already.
Real American are invested in, and accountable to, the best interest of the nation-state United States, its people and its capacity for self-determination. In a way, it's a good thing that you are instinctively hostile to the idea that libs aren't real Americans. It means that at some level you understand that being a real American is a good thing, and that you aspire to be one.
As you are probably aware, there's a lot of lib/Lefts in America, who, upon learning that they are not real Americans, think that's so much the better. Racism, slavery, Native American displacement, late capitalism, Christian fundamentalism, blah, blah, yada, yada.
Therefore, in this world, it's more important than ever to differentiate between those who have our best interest at heart and those who don't.
It ought to be educational for lib that in a situation where they actually have legit beef, and no matter how hard they try to turn the crank on the outrage machine, libs can't get real Americans to care about this to save their lives. Not so much out of hostility even, as opposed to indifference.
As I noted before, Kelly has toed the party line and is polling -better- than Sinema in Arizona.
Yes, that's exactly right. And Kelly Is Going To Lose, that's the whole point.
In 2023 or 2024 Sinema will be doing Sinema things, and ex-Sen Mark Kelly is going to be a lobbyist trying to keep step-up basis in the federal estate tax like the other Demo ex-Senators are doing.
And when that happens, don't you suppose that Demos in Arizona or Demos anywhere really will be looking at their options much differently than they are now? And that change in perspective will work substantially to the benefit of Miss Sinema?
I’ve seen no indication that Sinema is commanding some loyal constituency of voters in Az
Really? You don't think there are lots of D's in Arizona who don't the last five years of the Republican Party and don't want to be associated with Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs? Yet at the same time aren't married to any of the lib sacred cows or interest groups? I think there's lots of those people.
And how many do you expect a Demo in Az can afford to lose, especially given that Sinema won that seat by 1-2% in 2018, prob the best year in forever the Demo's will ever see.
Gabbard lost a presidential primary but because she was inconsequential and washed out she did no harm to the candidate.
Well yes, but she was a big long shot in that race. She was an incumbent in her Hawaii House race, and she was threatened with being primaried there. As it happens she didn't run for reelection.
But if she did, I think she would have won, probably fairly easily. Factional opponents can threaten to primary Gabbard or Sinema or whoever, but it's a much bigger deal to actually do it.
The important word is divisive. I don’t think a primary against Sinema will be divisive at all. Another moderate local Arizona Democratic politician will run against her and every major party constituency will promptly abandon her in favor of “Sinema without the treachery and cray”.
It looks that way now, but it won't look the same way after the midterm cycle and the Demos are licking their wounds from losing a pile of seats and being repudiated by the voters.
Tulsi Gabbard is a good example. IIRC she didn't lose a primary, and I don't think she would have lost if she had ran. She just wanted to do other stuff instead.
Having an incumbent in that seat will look a lot more valuable then than it does now.
Btw, the reason that it seems gettable for Demos now is that their results are inflated by animosity to Trump. Trump is gone now, and I expect him to still be gone in 2024.
That leaves the Arizona Republicans, who as a state party are horrible and like to fight among themselves. But, the hate figures for the populist wing of the party are gone now (McCain, Flake, McSally) so hopefully they'll execute better than they have over the last couple cycles.
Btw, the last time we went back and forth, I wrote a bad metaphor in one of my replies to you, and after I saw it I wished I hadn't. Maybe you noticed and maybe you didn't (and if you didn't so much the better) but in either case please accept my apologies.
She’s entirely replaceable and the Senate seat is far from lost without her.
It's 100% lost w/o her. Tbh, there's a very good chance it's lost with her as well, but without, no chance. Or, to be more precise, it's 100% lost if Sinema runs again and loses a primary.
She's the incumbent, and divisive primaries against a sitting incumbent never help that party. Demos are going to need every break they can get to hold onto that seat.
Yeah, there's no world where Sinema is replaced by a Democrat who actually wins the seat. And for that reason, I suspect she'll win a primary if she wants to run for reelection.
A lot of this goes to what I replied about earlier, specifically about how many GOP Senators there are going into the 2024 cycle and the outlook of that cycle. If it looks like there will be 58-59 GOP Senators in the new Senate and there's still a filibuster, the Demos will probably pull out all the stops to get a 41st vote. If there's 60+, it's very likely the libs will work just as hard to primary her out of spite. Of course, in that case, they may be looking to take their frustrations out on every Democrat, not just Sinema.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “JD Vance, Josh Mandel Put The Race Into Ohio Senate Race”
No, that's actually kind of the point.
Ie, in your context, there will be too many "bums" to "throw out" by voting Demo, and so whoever wants to throw the bums out is going to be looking to support this Republican in order to get rid of that Republican.
"
Yeah, yeah that could be true, but the flip side is also true and for me at least much more interesting, mostly because I don't think very much of our political culture has internalized it yet. The Left especially, but also our team for that matter.
Ie, libs understand that they might lose any particular election, but still they take for granted that they'll always at least have a seat at the table, at least rhetorically, and at any time they only need to catch a break or two to be back in power, at least somewhere.
And in truth it has been that way for 25 years or so, at least. But it doesn't have to be that way of necessity, and it's not heading that way now.
As a parenthetical, I think it's important to differentiate between 2022 and 2024, because imo the Demos are in a much different position from one cycle to the next. For this cycle it's baked in the cake, the voters have made up their mind, in fact been made up for a while, and they're just simply going to ignore whatever the Demos try to sell them. This has been pretty clearly demonstrated by Ukraine. Biden and the Demos are gifted a big issue, completely dominating our narrative, where Biden's actions and been reasonably popular and theoretically ought to get the benefit of a rally round the flag effect. But look at what's happened: Biden gained two points worth of job approval and then lost them straight back again. The voters are completely capable to say, "Demos, you're good with Ukraine but I'm still going to vote against you anyway."
2024 is much different. After Demos take a beating in 2022 there's some catharsis, and voters will have an open mind if Demos want to avail themselves to use it.
In any event, I'm glad you commented, because you in particular were one of the sort of people I was thinking about about. Let's suppose that after the 2024 cycle, GOP has 63 Senators, 250 Congressmen, and Ron DeSantis is President (not at all a ridiculous hypothetical btw). To the extent you can answer, how are you going affiliate yourself in our political culture?
Are you going to be a dead-end Demo? Are you going to look for some Chris Sununu/Glenn Youngkin/Charlie Baker style Republicans to affiliate with? Are you going to ignore politics altogether? Will you join a third party/new party?
"
None of it is going to matter. GOP will win the seat no matter who gets nominated.
As of now, and basically for the last year, there's two fixed stars in the American political firmament: GOP will control the House after the 2022 cycle, and GOP will control the Senate after the 2024 cycle. What's not known is the overall trajectory of the parties starting the 2024 cycle and thereafter.
We've gotten used to the idea that the two major parties are roughly in balance, for most of us it's difficult to imagine the idea that it could be any other way. But it absolutely can. There is nothing at all to guarantee that the Democratic Party will still exist in a meaningful way in 5-10 years. IMO this will largely be a function of the 2024 Presidential election and the Dems will have some very important and very difficult decisions to make in that cycle as to what they want to be and who they want to represent.
On “Tucker Carlson, Russia, and Hanlon’s Razor”
I haven't specifically heard anything to the contrary of that, still I have a hard time believing that's actually true.
"
No he didn't, but the US (and European, primarily but not only German) energy policy has increased the price of natural gas and other forms of energy and left Europe vulnerable to energy blackmail.
This creates a favorable environment for Putin to try aggressive foreign policy gambits, eg, invading Ukraine.
"
Afghanistan is part of the mix, but just a small part.
The biggest complaint specifically against American Demos is energy policy. But, there's more complaints against Germany, and specifically Merkel, who isn't an American Demo of course but the nature of the complaints means she's a useful proxy for American Dems. And of course the idea that we shouldn't have indicated the intention to add Ukraine to NATO, etc. which tbh was W's thing more than anybody. But for the populist part of the GOP, that shoe fits well enough too.
"
Basically. There have been some Right or conservative complaints to say that things Biden or Demos have done are what's created to aggravated the problem in the first place. Those complaints are legit, for the most part.
But as far as what the President and the Administration has done since the crisis became imminent or since the invasion itself, I really can't find any fault at all.
"
Basically what the Biden Administration has done so far. Ie, we can pile up arbitrarily large sanctions against Russia or weapons and munitions to Ukraine. But we're going to avoid direct US/Russia or NATO/Russia military conflict.
"
Without having seen the video in the link, these kind of arguments tend to be red herrings for me. Nobody really does a good job of arguing the counterfactual: we wouldn't be having significant problems with Russia, but for expansion of NATO, other grievances, blah blah.
Speaking just for myself, I was, pre-invasion, interested to find an accommodation for Russia's interests and perceptions, but that was then. I am completely uninterested in them now. Even if Russia's motivations are or were at some level legitimate, they still don't remotely justify what they have done, so what's the point?
"
Yeah, I find explanations like this to not differentiate very much. Tucker didn't build his reputation or his audience on Russia, and those things were worth piles of money from Fox.
I suspect said the things he said probably because he believed them. And to repeat from the prior comment, the Tucker line on Russia was credible in 2017. It's not credible now.
"
I don't really watch Fox News very much so I don't know all the particulars of this. But, it is pretty clear that Tucker has lost a lot of reputational capital behind this Russia business.
I was with him for a while. I remember he had Max Boot on as a guest early in the Trump Administration, and by the standard of the conventional wisdom at the time, he was a relatively pro-Russia pundit. it was a very contentious segment, and I thought Tucker clearly got the better of the argument.
But we're not in those times now. It wasn't clear then than Russia was our enemy, it was even less clear that Russia was necessarily our enemy. But since then, of course, Russia has done things that dramatically changes their stature in the world, and includes our bilateral relationship and many other things besides.
Basically, Tucker got sandbagged by Putin like everybody else. He would be better off eating some crow (and I think he may have eaten a tiny bit of it), but doubling down on his prior positions seems to be throwing good money after bad.
On “What America Needs for a Third Party”
It's not about heightening the contradictions, in fact it's just the opposite. It's also not about policy, the intention is to operate on a deeper level than that.
Ie, instead of having to project this posture of hostility and animosity, that libs can dial it down a little bit and try to rebuild stores of solidarity with conservatives, Republicans, Americans in general.
It's the right thing to do, #1, but it also has an element of pragmatism as well, where in a circumstance where you're already getting rolled, you might as well get some goodwill out of it.
And as it relates to the OP, I'm obviously not a third party guy. But if I were. my scenario is by far the best road to get there. It's obviously much more practical than things like abolishing the Senate and multi-member Congressional districts.
"
What can I say, it's a better brand than "Everybody but me is a troll."
"
Actually, the best way to get a significant third party is to vote Republican (and in fact there's a decent chance of this happening over the next few years).
The GOP has to execute its two-cycle two-step: crush the Demos in the House in 2022 and win +4 in the Senate (not completely baked into the cake but heading there), then win the Presidency in 2024 (probably DeSantis) and pile on a bunch more Senate seats.
When and if that happens, do you think Elie Mystal and David Roberts are going to be full of sweetness and light for Conor Lamb and Maggie Hassan (and vice-versa)? No, of course not, the only reason they can keep it together now is because there is enough credibility to think that they can beat the Republicans if they hold together. But if they can't, I don't see much motivation to play nice.
Ergo, the Demos will crack up and the we'll see some third parties.
On “Yes Virginia, There Was A Coup”
Hmm, I kinda interested in what specifically you're talking about, it's not exactly clear.
https://ordinary-times.com/2017/02/23/the-resistance-trump-and-islands-in-the-stream/
For old times' sake, I went back and looked at comments at that link, and there were certainly a couple things where I was wrong. But for the most part, I like what wrote there.
"
Well yes Philip, let's take look at that.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html
Over the course of the Biden Presidency, the President's approval rating has dropped, basically from 56% to 40%, as you can see in the chart above.
If I were super-motivated to make a visual for this, I'd screenshot this, and get out a virtual magic marker to show where your poll fits. But I'm not, so we'll just have to do.
In any event, there is a little micro-bump basically from 40.5% to 41% in the RCP aggregate around Jan 21-22 (it's the Biden's last bump in the chart as it stands now). That's what your poll is buying you.
It's really worthwhile to click the link to see the scale of Biden's unpopularity relative to his "bounce" in your poll. It's just barely visible if you know what you're looking for. There's no way you'd ever think it's important if you're taking any remotely reasonable perspective of public opinion of President Biden and the Democratic Party he represents.
Btw, it's either interesting or amusing as you choose, but Fox News is probably the best pollster in America with a Demo-favored house effect.
"
No Philip, that's not the way it works for lib activists in America today. It ought to, but it doesn't. And it's good that you want to be an exception, but really you're not.
For example, the most recent previous time we corresponded, you cheapshotted Mitch McConnell talking about how "blacks" voted a such a rate, comparable to "Americans" who voted at a similar or lower rate. It's obviously the sort of thing that everybody has learned to ignore, just one more glop of sludge in our SuperFund of lib cultural pollution.
But today, let's actually look at it for a sec. We don't care about these kinds of throwaway jabs very much but the idea is that is Mitch McConnell is somehow discredited from defeating the Administration's legislative priorities pertaining to reconciliation or voting rights or whatever because he's racist. And that it an attempt to undermine the self-determination of the American people, who sometimes when the stars align, are perfectly willing and capable of empowering people like Mitch McConnell to do exactly that. So if your typical mode of expression is to undermine the self-determination of the American people, and yours is Philip, other Americans can see that and make intelligent inferences about you and the people you are ideologically simpatico with.
Well yes, Congress isinvestigating January 6, go have at it. They've even found some stuff, either from the investigation itself or contemporaneously with it. First there was the Eastman memo, and now there's this draft Trump Executive Order.
Continue investigating for all I care. The mainstream media will certainly cover it. If somehow, Trump or his people are criminally charged, or taken out of play for the 2024 cycle, you're probably doing the GOP a favor.
But, it has to be plumb obvious by now the whole subject is simply not registering for real Americans. It's just not.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html
America is healing.
"
This is anklebiting and cheap. Not dirty, especially, but cheap.
America is healing, Philip, as real Americans have coalesced against the President and the Democratic Party:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html
This has happened for a number of reasons: inflation, covid, CRT, school closures, Afghanistan, immigration, etc, etc. These are what's important, in some order. January 6 simply doesn't register, and there's nothing in your comment or citation that changes any of this. And tbh Philip I have to believe you know this already.
Real American are invested in, and accountable to, the best interest of the nation-state United States, its people and its capacity for self-determination. In a way, it's a good thing that you are instinctively hostile to the idea that libs aren't real Americans. It means that at some level you understand that being a real American is a good thing, and that you aspire to be one.
As you are probably aware, there's a lot of lib/Lefts in America, who, upon learning that they are not real Americans, think that's so much the better. Racism, slavery, Native American displacement, late capitalism, Christian fundamentalism, blah, blah, yada, yada.
Therefore, in this world, it's more important than ever to differentiate between those who have our best interest at heart and those who don't.
"
It ought to be educational for lib that in a situation where they actually have legit beef, and no matter how hard they try to turn the crank on the outrage machine, libs can't get real Americans to care about this to save their lives. Not so much out of hostility even, as opposed to indifference.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Yes, that's exactly right. And Kelly Is Going To Lose, that's the whole point.
In 2023 or 2024 Sinema will be doing Sinema things, and ex-Sen Mark Kelly is going to be a lobbyist trying to keep step-up basis in the federal estate tax like the other Demo ex-Senators are doing.
And when that happens, don't you suppose that Demos in Arizona or Demos anywhere really will be looking at their options much differently than they are now? And that change in perspective will work substantially to the benefit of Miss Sinema?
"
Really? You don't think there are lots of D's in Arizona who don't the last five years of the Republican Party and don't want to be associated with Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs? Yet at the same time aren't married to any of the lib sacred cows or interest groups? I think there's lots of those people.
And how many do you expect a Demo in Az can afford to lose, especially given that Sinema won that seat by 1-2% in 2018, prob the best year in forever the Demo's will ever see.
"
Well yes, but she was a big long shot in that race. She was an incumbent in her Hawaii House race, and she was threatened with being primaried there. As it happens she didn't run for reelection.
But if she did, I think she would have won, probably fairly easily. Factional opponents can threaten to primary Gabbard or Sinema or whoever, but it's a much bigger deal to actually do it.
"
It looks that way now, but it won't look the same way after the midterm cycle and the Demos are licking their wounds from losing a pile of seats and being repudiated by the voters.
Tulsi Gabbard is a good example. IIRC she didn't lose a primary, and I don't think she would have lost if she had ran. She just wanted to do other stuff instead.
Having an incumbent in that seat will look a lot more valuable then than it does now.
Btw, the reason that it seems gettable for Demos now is that their results are inflated by animosity to Trump. Trump is gone now, and I expect him to still be gone in 2024.
That leaves the Arizona Republicans, who as a state party are horrible and like to fight among themselves. But, the hate figures for the populist wing of the party are gone now (McCain, Flake, McSally) so hopefully they'll execute better than they have over the last couple cycles.
Btw, the last time we went back and forth, I wrote a bad metaphor in one of my replies to you, and after I saw it I wished I hadn't. Maybe you noticed and maybe you didn't (and if you didn't so much the better) but in either case please accept my apologies.
"
It's 100% lost w/o her. Tbh, there's a very good chance it's lost with her as well, but without, no chance. Or, to be more precise, it's 100% lost if Sinema runs again and loses a primary.
She's the incumbent, and divisive primaries against a sitting incumbent never help that party. Demos are going to need every break they can get to hold onto that seat.
"
Yeah, there's no world where Sinema is replaced by a Democrat who actually wins the seat. And for that reason, I suspect she'll win a primary if she wants to run for reelection.
A lot of this goes to what I replied about earlier, specifically about how many GOP Senators there are going into the 2024 cycle and the outlook of that cycle. If it looks like there will be 58-59 GOP Senators in the new Senate and there's still a filibuster, the Demos will probably pull out all the stops to get a 41st vote. If there's 60+, it's very likely the libs will work just as hard to primary her out of spite. Of course, in that case, they may be looking to take their frustrations out on every Democrat, not just Sinema.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.