Rov_Scam
17d ago
On Kamala the candidate: She was likeable, i.e. she didn't have the Hilary Clinton problem of coming off as a bitch. She didn't have any major skeletons in her closet. She had a good resume. The downsides were that she had a reputation for being indecisive and carried the burden of a stillborn presidential primary campaign in which she said some things she would end up regretting. These aren't huge, though. All candidates have weaknesses, and she had fewer than most. I'm counting her invisibility during most of her vice-presidential tenure as neutral, because visibility can be a double-edged sword. Had she taken up some initiatives that were important to her but largely uncontroversial, it would have helped, but I don't think she intended on running for president again, so I don't fault her for not doing this.
On the campaign: She had a good ground game. She campaigned relentlessly in places where she needed to, and she didn't take any votes for granted. She didn't lean into unpopular rhetoric. There were no huge gaffes. She iced Trump in the debate, making him look like an incoherent old man. Most of the campaign criticisms she got are understandable, but ultimately unconvincing. She was certainly light on policy, but so was Trump, and it was pretty clear that the election wasn't going to be about policy. There was no reason to throw out bold proposals that might go over like a lead balloon. She didn't do many interviews, but I wrote about this before — the risks of her doing them outweighed the benefits. It's unlikely that anything she says on 60 Minutes is going to move the needle very far in her direction. If she does a good job it's just another boring political interview. If she does a bad job then it's news. No reason to risk it. Rogan's even worse because it's going to go 3 hours, probably veer far off-topic, and will be released unedited. There are a lot of things like this that you can argue she should have done differently, but they all would have been risky and with no certain payoff. She could have done a better job explaining the positions she took in the past and why she repudiated them.
Rov_Scam
17d ago
If we're talking the COVID vaccine, that ship has sailed. Bringing up 2021 policy concerns in 2026 isn't going to cost anyone their office. If you're talking vaccines in general, I doubt the antivax Republicans are large enough to primary anyone for any reason, let alone lack of a confirmation vote. And keep in mind that they only need a few Republican votes, and 13 GOP Senators won't be facing reelection until 2030. Ultimately, though, it won't matter, because Trump isn't even going to nominate the guy.
Rov_Scam
17d ago
In addition to prognostications, I'd like to voice my disdain for these postmortems. You can't expect to win every election. Kamala Harris was a good candidate who ran a good campaign. She wasn't a great candidate who ran a great campaign, but that's an unrealistic expectation. She won the states she was supposed to win and lost the battlegrounds by a few points each. Obviously not an ideal outcome, but far from cause to hit the panic button and start realigning your policies. The most annoying thing about these postmortems is that the inevitable conclusion is that the losing party needs to adopt more of the policies of the winning party. The second most annoying thing is that they act like one election is a real crisis point for the Democrats/Republicans and that the party is screwed long-term unless they make the necessary changes.
To the first point, I can offer an easy, lazy counterargument. Most of Biden's 2020 votes didn't go to Trump; Democratic turnout was down in general. The problem wasn't that they lost voters to Trump, but that they lost voters, period. Maybe part of the problem was that she didn't give her base enough reason to turn out? Maybe going full woke would have stirred the far lefties to action? Maybe the problem with black turnout could have been remedied by embracing BLM more? There was some discussion here yesterday about how blacks continued to vote 90% Democrat, despite claims that Trump was winning black men, and there was a post on Reddit today suggesting that the Democrats had a problem in that pandering to black voters turns off Latinos. The problem theories like this is that you don't want to alienate your base. Look at NASCAR. In the early 2000s it was gaining popularity at a breakneck pace. Bill France's though he could stoke this emerging market by introducing rule changes that would make it more palatable to the masses. The strategy massively backfired, as these changes didn't particularly appeal to the public, and most long-time fans hated them. The response was to dick with the rules even more. At this point, America's fastest growing sport has become a confusing mess that only total fanboys like my dad can follow. I'm not trying to suggest that making some changes toward moderation isn't a bad idea, but that there's an argument to be made to the contrary.
To the second point, there's no suggestion that the Democrats are screwed long-term because of one election. They ran an unpopular incumbent and were forced to change horses mid stream. Something could easily happen in the first half of the new administration that leads to a Democratic midterm blowout. Trump's stated economic policies put us at serious risk for inflation, and if that happens, people are going to want a change. Any number of things are possible. Following the 2006 midterms and 2008 Obama landslide, pundits were saying that without major changes, the Republican Party was doomed long-term. Two years later they did exactly nothing and got one of the biggest legislative reversals in history. But then they lost the presidency in 2012, and we were told that they were becoming the party of old white men and they needed to appeal more to minorities to have any chance. Then Trump came along and was massively more anti-immigration than any Republican in recent memory and won the presidency. Maybe if the Democrats had done things a little differently this time they would have won, but maybe not. If they keep losing elections by increasing margins I'll concede that it's time for a change, but we're nowhere near that point.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
I doubt any of these, with the possible exception of Massie, plays any significant role in a Trump administration, to wit:
-
RFK isn't going to be the next FDA Commissioner. His opinions might be popular among a certain portion of Trump's base, but they aren't popular among the GOP senators who have to confirm him. His complete lack of qualifications for the position give cover to any Republican looking to vote against his confirmation, and it's hard for me to see a vaccine hawk like Jim Justice voting for him in any event. If he gets anything, it's likely to be some made-up position that doesn't require Senate confirmation where he's given a title but no power, no budget, and no staff. He'll do this for 6 months or a year until he realizes it's pointless and resigns. Then he does the usual song and dance about how Trump doesn't really believe in his cause and cast him aside after making grand promises.
-
The chances of Tulsi getting a cabinet position like Secretary of State or Defense or National Security Advisor are even lower than those of RFK being FDA Commissioner. The Republican PArty, Trump's base included, is still dominated by people who supported Bush's foreign policy. Trump's stated pacifism is attractive to a growing number of people, but the average Republican is still more Bellicose than the average Democrat. A lot of older Republicans I talk to still criticize Obama's Iraq pullout. I've had countless arguments about why invading Iran isn't a good idea. Tulsi's a known Assad apologist, yet just prior to Trump's ascension Republicans were criticizing Obama for not taking action in Syria. Combine that with Trump's fixation on "looking tough", and someone like Tulsi is a nonstarter. I'd be surprised if she gets any position at all.
-
Like I said, this one has a decent chance of happening. That being said it only has a chance of happening because Massie is at least a sitting Republican congressman, and it's a position where he can't do much damage. Raw milk availability is largely a state-level issue, it doesn't break along partisan lines, and removing Federal regulations would only have a small effect on a market that's already tiny (most of the raw milk consumers I know buy it specifically because it's local).
-
I'm going to lump Ron Paul together with Elon Musk, whom you didn't mention, because it's pretty clear that the only role either of these guys would have would be in reducing government waste. It's also clear that neither of them would have a full-time position. Paul is 89 an retired, and Musk has to run something like 50 companies. My guess is they'll co-chair a bipartisan blue-ribbond panel on government waste and inefficiency which produces a pretty report showing that we could reduce the deficit by 0.3% if we cut these 9,000 programs, which report is presented to congress and promptly filed circularly after each legislator finds something in there that benefits his district.
The problem with a lot of this speculation is that it involves fringe figures who are hoping that profile will substitute for actual influence. People like John Barrasso and Thom Tillis don't want to see people who are further to the left than most Democrats placed in positions of power because they flattered Trump's sense of appealing to a broad coalition. In 2016 there was a lot of talk about Trump appointing Giuliani Secretary of State, and giving people like Steve Bannon and Sarah Palin prominent roles. Giuliani, loyal past the point of any logical sense, had to settle for Trump's personal attorney, and that was before he tanked his reputation. Bannon's career in the White House lasted approximately 20 minute, and Palin was never under serious consideration. Trump has a pattern of bringing people into his fold and making promises (or at least suggestions) that he conveniently forgets when it's time to actually pick someone.
There's some speculation that he might act differently this time because in 2016 he was too reliant on establishment advisors whose choices ended up burning him, and that he may choose to chart his own course this time. I don't think this is possible for two reasons. First, everyone listed above has locked horns with Trump in the past, and three of them are former Democrats whose stated views are still more liberal than the median Republican. There's no reason to believe that either Kennedy, Gabbard, or Musk would be any more of a Trump sycophant than Rex Tillerson or Mark Esper. Second, any position that comes with real power needs Senate confirmation, which makes most of these people total nonstarters.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
Well, I guess it would explain their hesitancy for admitting they were voting period, for Trump or otherwise. I would find it hilarious if the election were somehow overturned based on illegal Latino voting in Texas and Arizona.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
The idea is to optimize voting to favor the preferences of the voters who do research on the candidates and make informed decisions, as opposed to voters who turn out for Harris or Trump and then either vote their preferred party the rest of the way down the ticket, arbitrarily pick candidates, or leave the rest of the ballot blank. If you're only voting for one elector per district plus two at-large, it's easy for the parties to narrow in on their preferred candidates and run TV ads reminding you that a vote for Gene is a vote for Trump or whatever, and the uninformed electorate will have an idea of who to vote for. This would still be the case in the smallest states, but as you increase the total number of electors the less oxygen any individual candidate can get. By the time you get to 10 EV states it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to remember all the names based on osmosis alone, and the opportunity for osmosis is limited by the dearth of advertising. Ideally, the number of votes allowed would be based not on available seats but on percentage of the total slate, so that even small states would still have to potentially contend with large numbers of votes. The point is to maximize the amount of noise so the remaining signal comes from people who actually did their homework and are familiar with all of the candidates.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
To actually answer your question:
I think 1 had a lot to do with it, though this is only partially attributable to Biden, and there's no indication that Trump would have done things differently. I think 2 definitely exacerbated the problem, but more importantly, it prevented the Biden Administration from taking early action to get it under control. The initial price spikes were in oddly specific sectors of the economy that were easily explainable as supply chain disruptions, and the administration wasn't about to treat inflation as a systemic problem and risk triggering a recession. I don't think 3 had much of an effect other than a temporary spike in gas prices, and I don't think 4 really applies since COVID caused so much disruption.
Three factors you didn't mention are first, that COIVD suppressed consumer spending somewhat, which let to a release of bottled-up demand once the pandemic ended. Second, COVID caused temporary job losses in the service industry. This also happened at a time when a lot of boomers were approaching retirement age, and the disruptions caused the retirements to come in a huge wave rather than being spread out over several years. these positions were largely filled by laid-off service employees, causing a labor shortage that was felt most acutely at the bottom of the labor market. $15/hour went from something people were advocating legislation for to something that places like Sheetz had to offer just to get applicants in the door. Finally, the Federal Funds rate was at zero for two years. While aggressive cuts were probably necessary at the beginning of the pandemic, once "the new normal" had set in there was no reason to keep them at zero. Once vaccines became widely available in the Spring of 2021 and concern over COVID was waning fast, the Fed should have begun gradual rate increases with the goal of eventually bringing them back to pre-COVID levels, assuming the signals remained good. Instead, they let things ride until inflation became apparent.
If that's the case, does Trump deserve to be the one people turn to for relief? Or did he cause it to begin with during his last year as president? Is he actually going to make anything better now?
Trump may have played some part in this but given the situation, I'm not going to allocate blame among politicians. The problem with making this an electoral issue is that the problem has largely been solved; inflation is back down to within a point of the Fed's target rate. If people are expecting prices to return to 2020 levels then they're effectively asking for a serious recession. Inflation near 10% is annoying but it's something we can deal with, provided it doesn't last too long. 10% deflation would require something akin to the Great Depression; not just a recession, but a recession that we don't even try to mitigate. Trump's actual policy proposals and general tendencies show him making inflation worse. Tax cuts are inflationary, and we can expect some of those. Tariffs are inflationary, though probably not as much as critics suggest. He has a tendency to push for lower interest rates whether they're called for or not. And he's unlikely to balance these with corresponding spending cuts; in 2019 he pressured the Fed to cut rates during an economic expansion and has repeatedly suggested that the president have more control over monetary policy.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
Following a discussion with friends about the electoral college last night, I came up with an idea that would select for higher agency / lower time preference voters without venturing into dangerous waters. Basically, if we're not going to have direct election of the president then we should do away with any pretense that we have direct election. My ballot shouldn't say Harris or Trump if I'm really just voting for a predetermined slate of electors to cast the real ballots on my behalf, especially since these real voters are political muckety-mucks whose names aren't even widely publicized. We should get to vote for these people directly, and they should all be selected at-large. If California has 54 electoral votes, then California voters select up to 54 names.
To take things a step further, political parties won't be listed for any of the candidates. You just get names. Running for elector is just like running for any other position; have a certain signature requirement and fee and adjust things enough so the ballot has a reasonable number of names. So when people go to vote they're presented with a ballot on which they have to select numerous candidates from a slate of names without any party identifier. There's already precedence for this; if you vote in off-year elections in Pennsylvania you'll occasionally have to vote in some nonpartisan election for the board of a special district where you have to pick something like 5 names from a list of 20, and unless you really care about the makeup of this board there's a good chance you haven't heard of any of them unless you happen to know them personally. To my knowledge no one has ever complained about this.
Furthermore, the Founding Fathers hated the idea of political parties and would be appalled to discover that they've become a semi-official part of our system of governance. I'm not advocating the abolition of parties, but I don't know why our electoral apparatus needs to provide what is essentially free advertising to people who haven't otherwise paid attention to the election. In my system, electors can advertise who they plan on voting for, and newspapers, the League of Women Voters, and other groups can publish voter guides, and everyone gets full media access. But you have to do a modicum of preparation beyond selecting one of two names that have been pushed on you ad nauseum for the past six months. Some people just won't vote, and others will arbitrarily select names, like many do in the elections I described above. But a sufficient number of actually motivated people will do their research and fill out their ballots, and these are the people who will likely decide the election.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
Good write up. Most IRL Trump supporters I talk to, especially younger ones, seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't be sending any aid to Ukraine because it's not our war, etc., etc., and I think that general sentiment on the Right has seeped into discourse about Trump since he's been ambiguous on the issue. Trump's actual statements, though, lead me to believe that he still thinks of himself as a master negotiator and that he has the kind of influence with Putin that the Democrats don't, and accordingly he will be able to hammer out a settlement that both sides can live with.
Kudos to Trump if he can pull this off, but I'm pessimistic about the chances. The biggest problem is that any settlement would likely involve freezing the front lines where they are now, and it isn't in Russia's interest to do that. Problem number one is that they're currently making progress — slow progress, but progress — and any pause gives the Ukrainians the opportunity to further entrench their front lines. Problem number two is that the Ukrainians control part of Kursk, and while the area controlled isn't huge, I doubt Putin would be willing to put any of his own territory under semi-permanent Ukrainian control. He can dilly-dally when it comes to retaking it, but publicly acceding to its continued occupation would have negative political consequences.
As far as Kursk is concerned, there could theoretically be some horse trading involved, but it's unlikely that Zelensky would be willing to give up his greatest strategic asset in exchange for a comparably sized piece of the Donbas. Trump could certainly use the threat of withdrawing aid to force a deal down Zelensky's throat, but he'd probably only do this if the deal objectively made sense, i.e., if Zelensky was turning down obviously favorable terms because he wanted to continue the war. As much flack as Trump has gotten for cozying up to Putin, I highly doubt that he'd be willing to give up the store in Ukraine. Add in the probable necessity of some kind of security guarantee for Ukraine, and you have a recipe for failure.
In short, I think the end result of all of this is that Trump tries to hammer out a deal, Putin makes demands that are obviously preposterous, the talks fail, Trump comes back and claims he made progress, and the current levels of military aid continue unabated.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
McCormick's problem is that he basically hitched his wagon to a Trump win without actually jumping on the Trump Train. Notice that none of his TV ads are actually about him. Or Casey for that matter. They're about Biden and Harris, and only about Casey insofar as he supported Biden's policies. They do nothing to appeal to the kind of voter who would split his ticket. Maybe this is a good strategy, because we've become so polarized that no one who votes for Harris will trust a Republican senator to not vote in lockstep with the MAGA nonsense du jour. But the guy is basically Romney, and going full MAGA is probably both a bad strategic move and one that goes against his principles. So all he could really do was dunk on Kamala and hope that the R next to his name was enough to win. It might be, but man, was his campaign depressing to watch.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
For simplicity's sake, we'll assume that Harris won the same states Biden won in 2020. In your scenario, neither Harris nor Walz will have been formally elected, since that doesn't happen until the Electoral College meets on December 17. So, as far as Federal law is concerned, no election has even taken place yet, and the electoral vote will determine the presidency. The party has plenty of time to find new candidates and convince everyone that the Shapiro–Whitmer ticket doesn't represent a significant change. A problem arises, though, in that some state laws require the electors to vote for the candidates whose name appeared on the ballot.We don't have to worry about Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Georgia, or Illinois, since those states allow electors to vote for anyone. We don't have to worry about Wisconsin, Oregon, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia either, because although those states technically prohibit faithless electors, the votes are still counted.
As for the others, it would depend on whether the state legislatures could enact emergency legislation that either created a one-time exception or implemented an alternative system in the event that a candidate was deceased. If that couldn't be done, then things get goofy. The enforcement mechanism for most of these laws is that the faithless elector is replaced with one who will cast a ballot for the winning candidate. This presents us with two scenarios. In the first, the Secretary of State certifying the election accepts the faithless ballots, and is then sued by Trump for contravening state law. the state Supreme Court then issues a ruling affirming that since the intent of the law was to ensure that the will of the people is recognized by the electors, given the extraordinary circumstances, allowing the faithless ballots satisfies that will better than simply invalidating the majority of the votes.
In the second scenario (which would only happen if it was clear that the other way wasn't going to work), the electors simply elect Harris/Walz and treat it as though they both died simultaneously after becoming president. If the Democrats have won the House in this scenario, then Hakeem Jeffries becomes president. If the Republicans win, then a huge argument erupts over how the next speaker is going to nominate Trump for vice president and immediately resign so that Trump can become president. Unfortunately, there's no one believed to be sufficiently loyal as to give up the presidency in what is likely their only shot at it. So we spend the first few weeks of January in a huge floor fight where most of the Republicans nominate Mike Johnson again under the premise that he'd just be the president and could go from there, while the hardcore MAGA wing takes turns with a bunch of sacrificial lambs who nobody trusts to actually resign when the time comes and who would then face the added hassle of having to re-win their House seats if they actually did resign.
In the meantime, Inauguration Day is approaching and we don't have a speaker. This scenario only works if the Republicans also have the Senate (otherwise Trump would never get confirmed as vice anyway), so Chuck Grassley would become president. Since Grassley is approximately 10,000 years old there would be more credible calls for his resignation, but he'd surprise everyone and either stay on or nominate someone other than Trump. But these are pretty murky waters so that's just a theory.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
From what I can gather, Alabama only recognizes the Democratic and Republican parties for state and Federal races. the Libertarian candidates on the ballot are all for local races.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
I guess the remaining 1 percent prefer something else entirely.
As a first-born son who has spent a good part of his career untangling complex heirships involving people who died with 9 kids, who each had 7 kids of their own, etc. for a hundred years, I am strongly in favor of primogeniture.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
...more anti-democratic and blatant than anointing Kamala the Democratic nominee without a primary process?
I don't understand this complaint. The nominee is formally selected by convention, and has been since the 1830s. Primaries played no role in the selection of delegates prior to 1972; prior to then most states didn't even have them, and the ones that existed were mere "beauty contests" to demonstrate voter preference to the actual delegates. There was a brief period when Democratic delegates were bound to the candidate they had been selected for unless the candidate formally released them, but that hasn't been the case since 1984. When Biden dropped out of the race, the same delegates who were selected in the primaries were the ones who participated in the convention. They could have voted for anybody, but nobody besides Kamala made any serious play for the nomination.
If Donald Trump's assassination attempt the Saturday before the convention had been successful, do you seriously think that the Republicans would have postponed the convention so they could hold anything remotely resembling new primaries in all 50 states? As presumptive vice-presidential nominee and with Biden's endorsement, at least Kamala was an obvious choice. The GOP didn't have this luxury, and Nikki Haley, Ron Desantis, and anyone Trump had talked to about possibly being vice president would have all been jockeying for position. You're also talking about a party that's still hanging on to a caucus system that nobody outside of the relevant states seems to understand.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
Pinging @FiveHourMarathon and any other fellow Pennsylvanians for thoughts on some of the downballot races that nobody else on here cares about (and that very few Pennsylvanians actually care about.) Obviously, who you vote for is your own business, but I always find the dynamics of these races interesting.
First, is there something about the AG race that manages to filter out major party bozos? I'm sure the requirement to be admitted to the PA Bar has something to do with it, but there are plenty of bozo attorneys in the state. This is honestly the one race where I have zero preference on who wins. I get the impression that DePasquale is trying to use the office as a stepping stone for a gubernatorial run once Shapiro goes on to bigger and better things, and Dave Sunday comes across like one of the brass-balls types whom you hope isn't the father of your high school girlfriend, but other than that, they both seem qualified and reasonable, especially given that their platforms are so similar. I got the same impression last cycle, where I voted for Heather Heidelbaugh over Shapiro. She represented the kind of old-style Pittsburgh Republican (like Bill Green or Jim Roddy) who would go on public affairs programs nobody and have serious policy discussions with their Democrad friends. This is a dying breed, as was evidenced by Melissa Hart's utter failure in the GOP primaries, where she dropped out a day before the party nominated Doug fucking Mastriano.
Next, is there something about the Auditor General race that attracts Democratic perennial candidates from Philadelphia? In 2020 the party nominated Nina Ahmed, whose lone credential was serving on Philadelphia City Council and who didn't seem to even know what the Auditor General actually did. Even the Libertarian candidate was a CPA who chaired his township's audit committee. This year, we have Malcolm Kenyatta, another non-accountant politician who previously got a lot of the early endorsements in the 2022 Senate primary before being a total non-entity in the primary. What qualifies him for the position is beyond me. At least DeFoor is an actual accountant.
For the Treasurer race, there's Stacy Garrity, who seems to be doing a competent job but who I can't vote for on principle because I refuse to vote for anyone who makes military service the centerpiece of a campaign for an irrelevant row office. She also seems to be flirting with election denialism and comes across as uncomfortably Trumpy. I can't vote for the Erin McClelland, either, because, in addition to being unqualified, she's out and out said that she plans on using the state spending power for political ends and won't sign checks if she doesn't agree with the purpose. I ended up going with the Forward Party candidate, who is somehow even less qualified than the two major party candidates (he's a career tennis instructor), but this is a race where I can confidently throw my vote away.
Now for some quick hits: The Libertarian AG candidate went to Point Park College University and a Law School I've never heard of. He evidently works at firm in Downtown Pittsburgh that's notorious for requiring their attorneys to be in-office 9 hours a day and pays like 50k/year. PCN interviewed him from his office via Zoom and he spent more time explaining libertarianism than he did explaining what he would actually do in office or why anyone should vote for him.
The Constitution Party candidate for Senate has a series of self-produced YouTube ads where he says you should vote for him for Senate and Trump for president. It seems like poor party discipline for him not to be endorsing Randall Allan Terry for president, though to be fair, Mr. Terry is not on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
I base my downballot election decisions on voter's guides published by various outlets including The League of Women Voters, the local NPR station, and major newspapers throughout the state. Regardless of my opinions on his politics and the fact that he lives in Connecticut, Dave McCormick is automatically disqualified for not responding to any of these questionnaires. He's the only major candidate for any office who apparently thinks that this is beneath him. At least with his advertising budget it's understandable. What's not understandable is the third-party candidates who don't fill these out. When you have no money to advertise, and no one who is going to vote for you based on party affiliation alone, the least you can do is respond to one of these. Every candidate on the ballot gets one and participating is completely free. It's probably the only chance you're going to get to tell most people about yourself. This is literally the least you can do to mount a campaign, so if you don't do it I can't vote for you, unless there's some super-compelling reason to.
I also want to comment on State rep Leslie Rossi, who is my least favorite rep in the state house and who is emblematic of what is wrong with Republican party in general. In 2021 the rep in the district where she resided died unexpectedly. Her qualification for office: She owned the Trump House. During the 2020 election she painted a farmhouse she owned (but did not live in) as a massive Trump advertisement. What's surprising isn't that a bunch of morons elected her in a primary (morons from both parties get nominated all the time), but that she was specifically chosen by the party over the widow of the late representative. House GOP leaders in Harrisburg seemed pretty incredulous when they were asked about it. There was some discussion also about her being an "entrepreneur" but a friend who lives in her district told me that her husband actually runs the business and mentioned something about an extramarital affair that I can't remember.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
Just to give you my own story: I still don't have a Real ID. In PA DLs are good for 4 years. I renewed mine in 2017, but PA wasn't Real ID compliant until 2018. Nonetheless, family members were telling me I sould upgrade anyway because I'd need it to fly come 2020. Now, in addition to the paperwork, a Real ID costs double what a regular DL costs, so there's that. And I don't fly often so using my passport isn't too much of a hassle anyway, since that's always acceptable ID. Then COVID delayed the full implementation, and when my DL came up for renewal in 2021, the DL Centers were closed and they were doing everything by mail (my license still has a 2017 picture which looks nothing like me, for various reasons). I'm sure if I really needed it there would have been some way to get one but it wasn't exactly a pressing concern. Then I lost my wallet this past summer and had to get a new license and my parents told me I should do the Real ID then but I wasn't wasting a Saturday in the summer getting a driver's license and had to go on my lunch break and getting a reprint takes long enough as it is that I wasn't about to overcomplicate things by getting a Real ID at the same time. So maybe when my license expires again next year I'll get one, but I don't really see any compelling reason to.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
Let's suppose the GOP controls both houses and the presidency.
Traditionally, GOP opposition to mandatory ID has been a bigger hurdle than anything else. I say bigger because there hasn't exactly been a ton of enthusiasm from the left for this idea either, and it's never been a huge issue.
How hard can it be to issue an ID card to every American citizen?
If our experience with Real ID is any indication, pretty hard. The law requiring it was passed in 2005 and was supposed to go into effect in 2008. No states were even compliant until 2012, and the full implementation date — when you'll actually need a Real ID to board a domestic flight — has been pushed back repeatedly, currently scheduled for sometime next year. But even then it won't actually be required until 2027; you'll be informed of the noncompliance but allowed to board anyway. This, of course, assumes that the deadline doesn't get pushed back again, and while I won't speculate on the chances of that, only something like half of the people even have Real ID compliant identification.
To give you a sense of what's involved, I helped a woman do this a couple years ago. She had been married twice, and used the last name of her second husband. So while she had her birth certificate, it didn't show her legal name. I had to go to the marriage license department and pull two marriage licenses, both from the 1980s, and then go to the prothonotary to pull the divorce from the first marriage. This is why I roll my eyes when people like JD Vance talk about going door-to-door looking for people to deport. I'd imagine the number of native-born citizens who can immediately produce proof of citizenship upon request is a lot lower than some seem to think it is. I know where my birth certificate is right now, but a lot of people don't. And I'd imagine that the number of married women who have certified copies of their marriage license with their personal papers is vanishingly small (no, the certificate they give you doesn't count).
Rov_Scam
20d ago
To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that polling is useless, or that it shouldn't be done. I just don't think we should put to much stock into polls insofar as they concern the average voter.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
My understanding of a lot of polls is they weight their demographics by turnout from the last election, plus maybe some secret sauce to try to guesswork around shifting coalitions. But, what if their starting point, the 2020 election, was rife with fraud that is now being proactively stamped out?
They don't get their demographic data from the official tabulations of the last election. The official tabulation doesn't have demographic data. The adjust their weighting based on exit polling from the last election, among other things. For your theory to have any credence there would have to have been fraud in the exit polling, and efforts taken to eliminate fraud in exit polling.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
As part of a Catholic family we don't believe in any particular sanctity of the body once the soul leaves it. Accordingly, we don't visit graves, because nobody is there to see. So having an actual gravesite isn't important to me. Given that, I want my body to return to the earth, and I see no reason for it to be preserved for eternity with embalming chemicals and entombed in a large metal coffin. Unfortunately, state and local laws make it very difficult for one to obtain a natural burial, so I want those close to me to steal my body and bury it in an undisclosed location in the woods. That way, it can help germinate a tree or perform some other useful function. This would seem to obviate a funeral but I definitely want a funeral, not for my own benefit but for the benefit of those close to me. I've had several friends and family members who have died and requested no funeral, usually on the grounds that it's too much of a hassle. While I can't say I'm a fan of the whole traditional funeral thing, it is nice to have an opportunity to gather together in a time of need. I remember when my aunt died and there was no funeral and it was just an empty feeling. So I want there to be some kind of memorial, but I'll leave the details to the discretion of my heirs.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
As much as Kamala Harris was criticized for not going on podcasts or sitting for interviews, stuff like this makes it clear that it was probably the right decision. Dealing with such criticism is probably better than dealing with the fallout of an unexpected gaffe. Trump can get away with this, because he's already demonstrated that nothing he says will faze his supporters, but conventional politicians don't have that luxury. Hell, Vance only has that luxury because he's joined at the hip with Trump. Doing the podcast circuit is the kind of thing fringe candidates like Andrew Yang do because it gets them airtime they don't have to pay for, and the exposure is worth the gaffe potential. Once you've already made major candidate status there's little upside and huge downside to going on a freewheeling 3-hour podcast where the conversation could go in any direction. Tucker Carlson can say shit like this because he isn't running for anything and nobody is poring over his every word looking for ammunition against him. Imagine what would happen if Tim Walz went on Rogan and said the same thing.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
No one is changing internal policies based on polling predictions on who is going to win the next election. Even if Candidate X is posing sweeping regulatory changes to your particular industry, you're not going to start changing your policies because Candidate X is favored to win. You're not even going to start changing your policies after Candidate X wins. You're going to start changing your policies when the new regulations are actually enacted, because a lot can happen between proposals and final legislation.
Rov_Scam
20d ago
Terry Bradshaw is one guy out of many many people giving opinions, I wouldn't say that his opinion alone is the basis that people's futures ride on, but when Brandon Staley goes for it on 4th down, and Terry Bradshaw says that he's the reason the Chargers lost (everytime that happens, a guys livelihood is on the line), when the Rams lose a game and Terry Bradshaw says the Jared Goff is the reason why they lost (a guys livelihood is on the line).
I don't see what this has to do with anything I said. I'm talking about predictions, not post-mortem analysis.
It's an interesting question, especially insofar as any politicians have positive net approval ratings. Part of the problem is that a lot of well-liked politicians aren't that well-known (even if they're nationally known to people who pay any attention at all to politics). So, if by positive you mean that a majority of Americans have a favorable view of them, there is exactly one: Arnold Schwartzanegger, who has universal renown and a 59% approval rating, though a lot of this may have to do with his acting career. Number two is Trump, at 42%, also with universal recognition. If you adjust for recognition rate (and assume that those who have heard of the guy are representative of the country as a whole), Tim Scott is around 50% and Adam Kinzinger is at 65%. That's it for Republicans who have at least 50% recognition. While Scott may have a future in the party, Kinzinger's political career is pretty much over.
Just for comparison, I looked at Democrats, too. Jimmy Carter is the most popular at 61% with near-universal recognition. Others in the same boat are Obama at 59% and Harris at 54%. For those with less than Universal recognition we have Bernie Sanders (53% favorability), Liz Warren (52%), AOC (51%), Mayor Pete (54%), Cory Booker (53%), Tim Walz (55%), Gretchen Whitmer (53%), Hakeem Jeffries (56%), Mark Kelly (54%), Beto (51%), Amy Klobuchar (51%), Raphael Warnock (53%), Katie Porter (63%), Tammy Duckworth (55%), Jon Ossoff (58%), Jamie Raskin (55%), Claire McCaskill (55%), Jim Clyburn (51%), Sherrod Brown (52%), and Wes Moore (54%), plus a few others who are irrelevant. Some notable exceptions are Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman, who are all below 50%.
More options
Context Copy link