|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt faced withering criticism from congressional Democrats on Thursday, with one lawmaker calling him "unfit to hold public office." But Republican members of Congress — especially those representing states with large fossil fuel industries — rallied to Pruitt's defense.
It's the first time Pruitt appeared before lawmakers since weeks of accusations prompted a string of investigations — by the EPA Inspector General's office, at the Government Accountability Office and in Congress.
Pruitt has drawn scrutiny for a sweetheart housing arrangement in a condo owned by the wife of a lobbyist, hefty pay raises granted to staffers over the objection of the White House, a $43,000 soundproof phone booth he installed in his office and the reassignment of staffers within the agency who criticized the administrator's moves.
"You have failed as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and our environment," said Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., at the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee.
"Every indication we have is that you really should resign," added Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "You are unfit to hold public office and undeserving of the public trust."
Source
They are not holding back at all. It was quite obvious with his first order of business that he shouldn't be leading the EPA and he's just trying to line his pockets before he's inevitably booted. Would imagine the same is going to happen to Carson as well.
|
If the Dems manage to retake Congress, I highly expect Pruitt to be forced to resign. I don't think this round of hearings will cause anything to happen, though.
|
The swampiness of Trumps cabinet is pretty entertaining. I mean between Pruitt and Mulvaney you couldn’t get any more openly corrupt. There’s no honest defense for it.
|
On April 27 2018 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the Dems manage to retake Congress, I highly expect Pruitt to be forced to resign. I don't think this round of hearings will cause anything to happen, though.
If the dems mobilize correctly, retaking the senate is probably easier to attain. House, not so much. Depends on deliverance of whatever message they're gonna try and send.
|
Retaking the House would be huge. All budget bills have to start in the house, so the Democrats would control funding of the executive branch. Plus a big swing would mean a lot of new blood, which would go a long to way shake up the stale house leadership.
|
I honestly think it'll have to start at the state level in a lot of states and then move to the capitol hill in 2020. I don't see it happening this go around.
|
On April 27 2018 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the Dems manage to retake Congress, I highly expect Pruitt to be forced to resign.
It's not looking great on that front.
I know AZ 08 was supposed to be a symbolic victory hinting at "the blue wave" for Democrats but there's quite a bit of context missing from pretty much all the reporting on it.
Biggest one that rarely comes up is this was formally Gabby Giffords district, so not exactly the solid red district it looks like if you look exclusively since Republicans won it after she left.
The vote totals were also a fluke. The 2016 vote total for the Green party candidate would have beaten both candidates in the special election.
Despite the original mention of this here indicating it wasn't like the previous races, it sorta was. The Republican candidate was under scrutiny for what appeared to be an obvious and reasonably egregious campaign finance violation and was relatively unknown beyond that and not the 'kind of republican' that group of voters would typically support.
Many of these "blue wave" 'wins' have been against remarkably weak opponents and under unusually favorable circumstances. There has been a LOT of them though, a lot of stepping down for sexual misconduct, retiring, suicides, etc... So maybe there will be enough of those to take a small majority, though it'll come with house versions of Manchins and Heitkamps, so I'm less confident they would get much done against Trump.
The focus on Trump and continuation of Hillaryesque policy is the worst strategy Democrats can take into mid terms but it seems they have no other plan.
To put it into perspective, despite the non-stop coverage of all of Trump's most egregious and offensive behavior Hillary is less favorable than Trump and the DNC wants her to campaign with candidates in 2018 while they sue Russia.
|
|
|
On April 27 2018 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the Dems manage to retake Congress, I highly expect Pruitt to be forced to resign. It's not looking great on that front. I know AZ 08 was supposed to be a symbolic victory hinting at "the blue wave" for Democrats but there's quite a bit of context missing from pretty much all the reporting on it. Biggest one that rarely comes up is this was formally Gabby Giffords district, so not exactly the solid red district it looks like if you look exclusively since Republicans won it after she left. The vote totals were also a fluke. The 2016 vote total for the Green party candidate would have beaten both candidates in the special election. Despite the original mention of this here indicating it wasn't like the previous races, it sorta was. The Republican candidate was under scrutiny for what appeared to be an obvious and reasonably egregious campaign finance violation and was relatively unknown beyond that and not the 'kind of republican' that group of voters would typically support. Many of these "blue wave" 'wins' have been against remarkably weak opponents and under unusually favorable circumstances. There has been a LOT of them though, a lot of stepping down for sexual misconduct, retiring, suicides, etc... So maybe there will be enough of those to take a small majority, though it'll come with house versions of Manchins and Heitkamps, so I'm less confident they would get much done against Trump. The focus on Trump and continuation of Hillaryesque policy is the worst strategy Democrats can take into mid terms but it seems they have no other plan. To put it into perspective, despite the non-stop coverage of all of Trump's most egregious and offensive behavior Hillary is less favorable than Trump and the DNC wants her to campaign with candidates in 2018 while they sue Russia.
I live in Arizona District 8 and voted in the special election. Your characterization is a little off. This is a very republican district, last I read in registrations alone it's 63% R.
Trump won this district by 21 points in 2016.
Franks won this district by 28 points in 2012.
Franks wins in 2014/2016 went largely unopposed so when you say the 'green party' got more votes than either in 2018 it's kind of a weird way to frame the data. There was no D on the ballot in either of those years because the demographics were so bad it was pointless to run a candidate.
Debbie Lesko winning was basically a shoe-in despite the campaign finance violation (which our state said 'whocares') but it could still be dealt with at the federal level (LOL). Debbie Lesko was a name people were familiar with if they follow local politics, the Dem, was the newcomer with no political experience or name recognition.
The interesting thing about this race and is that as you said, turn out wasn't spectacular so there wasn't a 'blue wave' of voter turn out necessarily but the amount of R's and I's that went for Tipirneni exceeded all projections. While it'd be great to have registered Dems show-up in better numbers, it does appear there is a lot of movement from R->D and I->D.
This district could very well go D in the future as the older crowd dies off as this district is pretty old and white. Here are the breakdowns by age that give me hope for the future.
|
How are the strikes being received in your state? From the reports I have been reading, it seems people are happy the teachers are not backing down.
|
On April 27 2018 05:14 Plansix wrote:
How are the strikes being received in your state? From the reports I have been reading, it seems people are happy the teachers are not backing down.
As of now, support is very high for the teachers. There is some speculation if the strike lasts too long though it could flip. Luckily, most people have not swallowed Gov. Ducey's bullshit '20%' proposal, including Republicans in the legislature.
The turnout for the march has been overwhelming as well. I just read an early estimate of 75,000 (much higher than anticipated, they had to close more streets) have turned out.
Personally, I support it! My Mom is a high school teacher in AZ (Ap Bio/Dual Enrollment), both Grandparents were teachers (k-12, high school, college) my Aunts and Uncles are professors (out of state) and my wife and I both work in education administration at the college level. So yeah.. I have a long family history of being very pro-education. My mom has been texting me videos/pics from the March and so far it's gone very well.
|
On April 27 2018 05:14 Plansix wrote:
How are the strikes being received in your state? From the reports I have been reading, it seems people are happy the teachers are not backing down.
Turnout is crazy. You've seen people on corners the last few days around Phoenix, but today it exploded. Everyone I've talked to supports the teachers.
|
NPR just reported a recent poll saying there 75% of Americans support teachers striking to improve education policy and their pay. It’s an eye opening number. I wager this is going to become the new normal for a lot of states, even MA that has pretty good schools and well paid teachers(with exceptions)
|
On April 27 2018 05:10 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the Dems manage to retake Congress, I highly expect Pruitt to be forced to resign. It's not looking great on that front. I know AZ 08 was supposed to be a symbolic victory hinting at "the blue wave" for Democrats but there's quite a bit of context missing from pretty much all the reporting on it. Biggest one that rarely comes up is this was formally Gabby Giffords district, so not exactly the solid red district it looks like if you look exclusively since Republicans won it after she left. The vote totals were also a fluke. The 2016 vote total for the Green party candidate would have beaten both candidates in the special election. Despite the original mention of this here indicating it wasn't like the previous races, it sorta was. The Republican candidate was under scrutiny for what appeared to be an obvious and reasonably egregious campaign finance violation and was relatively unknown beyond that and not the 'kind of republican' that group of voters would typically support. Many of these "blue wave" 'wins' have been against remarkably weak opponents and under unusually favorable circumstances. There has been a LOT of them though, a lot of stepping down for sexual misconduct, retiring, suicides, etc... So maybe there will be enough of those to take a small majority, though it'll come with house versions of Manchins and Heitkamps, so I'm less confident they would get much done against Trump. The focus on Trump and continuation of Hillaryesque policy is the worst strategy Democrats can take into mid terms but it seems they have no other plan. To put it into perspective, despite the non-stop coverage of all of Trump's most egregious and offensive behavior Hillary is less favorable than Trump and the DNC wants her to campaign with candidates in 2018 while they sue Russia. I live in Arizona District 8 and voted in the special election. Your characterization is a little off. This is a very republican district, last I read in registrations alone it's 63% R.
Let me start by saying I appreciate a response like this.
One key in that is not mentioning the number of votes/voters and framing. Said another way:
There are ~391,675 registered voters, 42% are registered Republican, the other 58% are not. That leaves Democrats ~228,000 voters that aren't registered Republicans vs ~162,000 that are. As well as ~over 90,000 that voted green party over a Republican, more than either candidate got in the special election.
Trump won this district by 21 points in 2016.
Franks won this district by 28 points in 2012.
Franks wins in 2014/2016 went largely unopposed so when you say the 'green party' got more votes than either in 2018 it's kind of a weird way to frame the data. There was no D on the ballot in either of those years because the demographics were so bad it was pointless to run a candidate.
The reason I say that isn't to say that the Green candidate outperformed a Dem in 2016 (as you said they didn't even try), it's to say that they got more votes than the Republican did to win this special election. Which indicates this election was a matter of turnout, not that there weren't more than enough people there that would happily vote against the Republican candidate. Trent Franks was uniquely fitted for that seat and beating him would be hard, but it simply isn't the super republican district the media and those recent percentages are suggested to indicate.
Debbie Lesko winning was basically a shoe-in despite the campaign finance violation (which our state said 'whocares') but it could still be dealt with at the federal level (LOL). Debbie Lesko was a name people were familiar with if they follow local politics, the Dem, was the newcomer with no political experience or name recognition.
The interesting thing about this race and is that as you said, turn out wasn't spectacular so there wasn't a 'blue wave' of voter turn out necessarily but the amount of R's and I's that went for Tipirneni exceeded all projections. While it'd be great to have registered Dems show-up in better numbers, it does appear there is a lot of movement from R->D and I->D.
You can speak to her local popularity better than I can, but my larger point was that the Dem (and the Republican) got less votes than a Green party candidate in the same district. It's certainly an uphill battle of a state but what's important is how terribly misinterpreted these special elections have been in general.
We'll see if in 2018 Dems are able to beat their previous high points in these districts by voters or if what they're really counting on is merely severely depressed Republican turnout, because that worked out great in 2016.
This district could very well go D in the future as the older crowd dies off but this district is pretty old and pretty white. Here are the breakdowns by age that give me hope for the future.
|
Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.com
The DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?"
The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way.
|
The DCCC needs to focus on finding candidates in districts that have none and give up playing king maker. With the rare exception one candidate is a true garbage human, like that Nazi guy.
|
On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” Show nested quote +During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. Show nested quote +“It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way.
It's not just the DCCC, or the DNC, it's the leadership of the Democratic party from top to bottom across the country, save a few bastions. Demonstrated here by one of the few leaders less popular than these same people's handpicked presidential loser backing the idea of doing the exact opposite of what DNC leadership (Tom Perez) explicitly said they would be doing.
I don't know who's supposed to be leading the Democratic party right now, but they seem dead set against it being Bernie, despite him being significantly more popular than they are.
|
On April 27 2018 03:35 ticklishmusic wrote:So, catching up on news and I saw the Trump interview on Fox & Friends. In the interest of being neutral, I'm just going to link the transcript from Fox News. It is pretty rambly. But overall Trump airs a lot of grievances. It kind of keeps declining to the point the interviewers kind of cut him off before he says something really bad it feels lile.
The best part was when he explicitly threatened to interfere at the Justice Department. I wonder if interfering at the Justice Department would be a greater offense in the eyes of Republicans than firing the FBI Director who is investigating you. This interview does need to be heard though to understand the full extent of the breakdown that occurred:
|
On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” Show nested quote +During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. Show nested quote +“It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way.
Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow
|
On April 27 2018 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. It's not just the DCCC, or the DNC, it's the leadership of the Democratic party from top to bottom across the country, save a few bastions. Demonstrated here by one of the few leaders less popular than these same people's handpicked presidential loser backing the idea of doing the exact opposite of what DNC leadership (Tom Perez) explicitly said they would be doing. I don't know who's supposed to be leading the Democratic party right now, but they seem dead set against it being Bernie, despite him being significantly more popular than they are.
bernie doesn't want the position of leader of the democratic party, so it seems rather moot how anyone allegedly feels about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
