2018 Senate (& House)

Seattle Husker said:
It's important to point out the context for why commentators (left and right) a made case for Franken not stepping down. Those on the left saw it as naive for the Dems to hold themselves accountable to a MUCH higher bar than than the Republicans hold themselves to (Trump and Moore).
Click to expand...

Some also called for due process (meaning the women shouldn't automatically be believed) and for proportionality (essentially the Ari Fleischer argument).

However, Democrats ultimately decided to set aside the due process concern because it makes the issue much harder to exploit as a political weapon. It means not jumping to conclusions. It means taking denials as seriously as accusations. It means being ok with hostile questioning (essentially cross examination) of the accuser and pointing out possible holes and inconsistencies in her story. It means highlighting facts that might weaken her credibility. It means seriously entertaining the possibility that Roy Moore wasn't necessarily a child molester, which means Democrats don't pick up a Senate seat. It means not just assuming that Trump is lying when he denies his accusers. The potential benefit of summary condemnations was too great.
 
old65horn said:
That's quite a leap there Mr. Mr Deez since the pressure came much later with the butt touching. Stick to facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the reason nobody was going to believe him about the butt-touching is that there was there was strong evidence of him acting like a handjob with Tweeden.
 
Franken's defenders jumped in to help against Tweeden even as Franken apologized. The support withered greatly (as it should) with each successive woman that came forward.
 
I initially thought Franken would eventually resign. That was before more came out. You can't piss and moan about ***** grabbing and then ignore it when it's done by your folks. I did see that Senator Gilderbrand donated the $5,800ish that Trump had donated to her over the last decade to the country's largest anti sexual assault group. To be fair about her, I've heard her talk over the last 6 months before all of this started more than once about her legislation to address how the military handles these kind of accusations. It's currently very 1950ish in that any complaint first has to go through the chain of command and it can be derailed with no questions asked at that point.
 
So much for that higher ground. No longer need it now that Moore lost.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/18/democrats-now-regret-pushing-accused-groper-al-franken-to-resign/

Some Democratic senators now regret pushing accused groper Sen. Al Franken to resign, and are urging him to stay on, according to a new report.

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” one anonymous senator told Politico. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.”

Franken reluctantly bowed to his colleagues’ demands to step down earlier this month after he was accused of sexual assault by eight women, saying he’d leave the Senate “in the coming weeks.” Minnesota Lt. Gov. Tina Smith has been tapped as his replacement.

But at least four senators — including three who initially joined the chorus demanding the handsy lawmaker step down — now want the Minnesota pol to reconsider his planned January exit, the site reports.
Click to expand...
 
I know I'm supposed to be MAGA-ing and not being a cuck, but is there a point at which we're supposed to worry about this trend?
 
Mr. Deez said:
I know I'm supposed to be MAGA-ing and not being a cuck, but is there a point at which we're supposed to worry about this trend?
Click to expand...

I know I'm supposed to be hoping that trend comes true, because folks on this board seem to think I'm a Democrat. But it is truly something I worry about. Trump's enduring legacy may well be putting the Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches for an extended period of time. If that happens, we will all suffer.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Trump's enduring legacy may well be putting the Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches for an extended period of time. If that happens, we will all suffer.
Click to expand...
That would only be a likelihood if the Democratic party moved to the center on some of their extreme social positions. As long as Dems think the critical National issues are transgendered bathroom rights, gay marriage, gun control, and climate control they will continue to be mostly limited to the large urban centers. I actually saw the Moore loss in Alabama as instructive to the Democrats. They won a razor thin victory over a candidate accused of molesting a teenager. That is not a great place to be.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I know I'm supposed to be hoping that trend comes true, because folks on this board seem to think I'm a Democrat. But it is truly something I worry about. Trump's enduring legacy may well be putting the Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches for an extended period of time. If that happens, we will all suffer.
Click to expand...
I think the best case scenario for our country is where there is a split in power between both the branches of government and the Senate and House. They have to work together. When any one side has full control things go poorly. I personally think either economic theory will work but I don't think bouncing back and forth every 4-12 years is a good look. I think those models should move slowly and with larger increments.
 
OUBubba said:
I think the best case scenario for our country is where there is a split in power between both the branches of government and the Senate and House. They have to work together. When any one side has full control things go poorly. I personally think either economic theory will work but I don't think bouncing back and forth every 4-12 years is a good look. I think those models should move slowly and with larger increments.
Click to expand...

Negotiated compromise is when government works best.
 
Alabama has officially certified Doug Jones as Senator of Alabama.

Meanwhile, Roy Moore continues his refusal to concede citing massive voter fraud as the reason Jones won. The Sec of State Merril (R) says they investigated >60 reports of fraud and found legitimate conduct for each case.
 
Last edited:
UTChE96 said:
I actually saw the Moore loss in Alabama as instructive to the Democrats. They won a razor thin victory over a candidate accused of molesting a teenager. That is not a great place to be.
Click to expand...

It was the reddest state in the nation. The fact that an alleged child molester could get 48% of the vote simply because he had an 'R' next to his name talks to the uphill battle Democrats have in Alabama.
 
UTChE96 said:
That would only be a likelihood if the Democratic party moved to the center on some of their extreme social positions. As long as Dems think the critical National issues are transgendered bathroom rights, gay marriage, gun control, and climate control they will continue to be mostly limited to the large urban centers. I actually saw the Moore loss in Alabama as instructive to the Democrats. They won a razor thin victory over a candidate accused of molesting a teenager. That is not a great place to be.
Click to expand...

You're correct. In fact, I lamented this same issue about why the Democrats are so out of touch that almost majority of Alabama voters preferred a child molester over their nominee.

However, the Democrats don't have to win in Alabama to blow out the GOP next year. Jones's win was bonus. They just have to hold their own seats and flip Nevada and Arizona. That's not likely but if there's a Democratic wave, it could certainly happen. And they only need 25 more seats to flip the House, and there are enough swing seats to do that. With the terrible generic ballot numbers, that's more likely to happen than not.

It's not too late to weather the storm, but the GOP needs a major turnaround. They need more policy victories and need to dramatically improve their dumpster fire messaging. It has been poor for years, but now it might be the worst I've ever seen it.
 
Last edited:
What's the surprise? With role models like Nancy P and Sheila L why would anyone not turn to the Dems.
 
OUBubba said:
I think the best case scenario for our country is where there is a split in power between both the branches of government and the Senate and House. They have to work together. When any one side has full control things go poorly. I personally think either economic theory will work but I don't think bouncing back and forth every 4-12 years is a good look. I think those models should move slowly and with larger increments.
Click to expand...

Barry, this sounds nice, but you have conflicting goals. You want power split between the branches and want the parties to work together. However, you want economic theory put into practice on a stable and long term basis rather than bouncing around.

You can have one of these things but probably not both. When the parties are sharing power, major concessions have to be made on policy, including economic policy. That means you're going to have facets of a market-oriented economy from Republicans and facets of a command economy from Democrats coupled with exceptions to both even within the parties. And of course, you never have a 50-50 split, so sometimes you'll get a little more of the GOP's policies and at other times you'll get a little more of the Democrats' policies.

To really get what you want on economics, you'd need one-party rule. You'd need one of the parties to have big enough majorities in both houses to overcome filibusters. McConnell would have to be able to tell Schumer to screw off and have it not matter at all or vice versa. Furthermore, you'd need the majorities to be big enough to overcome defectors. McConnell would have to be able to tell Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, etc. that he doesn't give a crap if they vote with Schumer on a given bill and won't make any concessions based on it. For Democrats, we'd be talking about Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Barry, this sounds nice, but you have conflicting goals. You want power split between the branches and want the parties to work together. However, you want economic theory put into practice on a stable and long term basis rather than bouncing around.

You can have one of these things but probably not both. When the parties are sharing power, major concessions have to be made on policy, including economic policy. That means you're going to have facets of a market-oriented economy from Republicans and facets of a command economy from Democrats coupled with exceptions to both even within the parties. And of course, you never have a 50-50 split, so sometimes you'll get a little more of the GOP's policies and at other times you'll get a little more of the Democrats' policies.

To really get what you want on economics, you'd need one-party rule. You'd need one of the parties to have big enough majorities in both houses to overcome filibusters. McConnell would have to be able to tell Schumer to screw off and have it not matter at all or vice versa. Furthermore, you'd need the majorities to be big enough to overcome defectors. McConnell would have to be able to tell Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, etc. that he doesn't give a crap if they vote with Schumer on a given bill and won't make any concessions based on it. For Democrats, we'd be talking about Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.
Click to expand...

If either party had unbridled power to implement their complete economic agenda we'd be worse off. It would be a golden age for lobbyists of that particular party thus they'd get a free pass card to do anything they wanted. Look no further to the Democrats attempt to push solar under Obama and the takeover of the EPA by the Energy industry now under Trump. In both situations the tax payer will be asked to cleanup the mess. We were on the hook for Solyndra when it failed and we'll get stuck cleaning up the environmental mess (see: Superfund sites). You could also point to the Bank bailouts too as a result of deregulation.

Both sides care about the deficit only when the other party is in power. In this way, they are a decent check against each other.
 
Both sides care about making the American people believe they are indispensable to solving our problems. The battle for those of us with a Libertarian streak is to convince people that the federal government should be shrunk across the board, and should be completely shut out of most governing decisions.
 
Seattle Husker said:
If either party had unbridled power to implement their complete economic agenda we'd be worse off. It would be a golden age for lobbyists of that particular party thus they'd get a free pass card to do anything they wanted. Look no further to the Democrats attempt to push solar under Obama and the takeover of the EPA by the Energy industry now under Trump. In both situations the tax payer will be asked to cleanup the mess. We were on the hook for Solyndra when it failed and we'll get stuck cleaning up the environmental mess (see: Superfund sites). You could also point to the Bank bailouts too as a result of deregulation.

Both sides care about the deficit only when the other party is in power. In this way, they are a decent check against each other.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely not an advocate of one-party rule. It usually leads to terrible policy as you've pointed out regarding both Democrats and Republicans.

All I'm saying is that our token Sooner will never get what he wants on economic policy without one-party rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top