I guess the moral of the story is that Kardashian was the key lawyer for O.J. Dershowitz on his own is no draw at all.
It isn't a draw because everyone knows perfectly well what the result is going to be. There was a chance that OJ Simpson might have been convicted or that Kavanaugh might not have been confirmed: there's no chance of a conviction here at all. There isn't even a chance of a knock-on conviction for perjury or something.
I keep on thinking there's more than no chance. Not much more than no chance, but the incredible unity of the Republican party isn't a natural law, it's something individuals with individual motivations are doing, and weird stuff can happen. But I don't think whether or not it happens is going to depend on much that happens in public.
Well Trump keeps being his own worst enemy, looks like he may have embarrassed the GOP Senators intent on helping him cover up into admitting witnesses. His incompetence may be the only thing that saves the republic, if it indeed can be saved.
Technically, there's more than no chance. But it's Power Ball odds.
Seriously. It's, what, 20 Republican Senators that would have to switch sides? 20!
We'll see but he's making it really hard for them to stick to continue to toe the line.
The Bolton thing is a real bombshell. Trump seems to have the worst luck when it comes to the timing of these revelations.
6: It's not 20 uncorrelated events. It's one event, a portion of the Republican party growing morals and a spine, that is really unlikely.
20 is a lot, but flipping isn't uncorrelated -- it's only safe and penalty-free to support Trump as long as everyone does it.
I always consider how the errors are correlated.
The odds of conviction aren't technically zero, but they're are comparable to lightning strikes or shark attacks. Some chance of particularly embarrassing or entertaining meltdowns or damaging quotes, I guess.
it's only safe and penalty-free to support Trump as long as everyone does it.
It's a different penalty either way, regardless of how many others do it or now. If they support Trump, their next general election is a little harder for them. Hopefully enough harder that they lose, but it's too early to say and as Charley said in the last thread all politics is local. If they oppose Trump, their next primary is a little harder for them.
I still think there's a snowball's chance in hell we'll get a conviction at this point. But witnesses? That could well happen after the Bolton book kerfuffle.
And I don't think it should go unremarked that Trump threatened an Representative's life.
This was already said in 2 but to me following along is completely uninteresting because there is no dramatic uncertainty whatsoever. Is there any chance that the Senate might convict? No. Will more evidence come out that he's guilty? Probably... but who cares? The evidence is already overwhelming and doesn't make any difference except to historians. About the only open question is whether at the end of the day will there be a small handful of republican senators who break party lines and vote to convict (but not enough senators to actually convict him), or will it be a strict party-line vote. And that's just not a very interesting question -- not enough to captivate daily attention.
I think the odds are greater that one Democrat will break than one Republican.
There may be benefit in another way-they're-obviously-lying coming out twice a week - as many opportunities as possible for the outrage to percolate to low-information voters. Even if many of them are presumably shutting out news altogether.
I half-seriously suggested this weekend that the House should send another bill of impeachment every month until the election, to keep this on the burner.
I would agree with 17, actually. Joe Manchin is personally on very good terms with Trump and is sitting in a fairly red state. He voted to confirm Kavanaugh. No Republicans voted against confirmation. (Murkowski said she would have done but reasons, etc, but was presumably lying.)
18.2: is there a rule of double jeopardy when it comes to impeachments?
I keep on thinking there's more than no chance
I agree, but I think it'd have to be REALLY big news. Like, confirmation that Trump's businesses have been laundering money for Russian oligarchs for years, plus confirmation that Moscow Mitch and other GOPers have benefited from Russian money via the NRA.
20: There's not a great deal of precedent. I assume people would treat a followup impeachment based on the same conduct as barred, but not one based on different conduct. If the rule was one impeachment per presidency, you could immunize a president of your own party by preemptively impeaching him on flawed grounds and then acquitting.
Right, different conduct. Obstruction of Comey, obstruction of Mueller, emoluments...
It's so weird to me that everybody who matters has agreed that the Bolton stuff is a surprising new development. Guess what, folks: We already knew Trump was guilty.
It's another person with no political motivation to aid Democrats, in an unimpeachable position to have first-hand information. If you somehow sincerely thought the accusations against Trump weren't true, which the Republican senators are purporting to, he'd be hard evidence to ignore.
If you somehow sincerely thought the accusations against Trump weren't true, which the Republican senators are purporting to, he'd be hard evidence to ignore.
Based on skimming some editorials last week, the party line seems to have shifted to, "who cares if Trump did it (everyone knows Trump did it, Dems do it all the time too, hey look a jackalope, etc.) or if it's illegal, but is it really bad enough for a first-time-in-history impeachment (never mind that Nixon by all accounts Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn't been resigned, and that the answer to this isn't obvious)?"
Bolton does have a political motivation: He apparently believes that the stuff he cares about is more likely to happen under President Pence than under President Trump, taking into account the likelihood of Republican victory in 2020 under the Trump and Pence scenarios. If the Republican Senate Caucus meets privately and reaches the same conclusion, conviction could happen. Also war with Iran, withdrawal from the UN, compulsory daily prayer in public schools , . . .
I'm not saying he's right, just that that's how it looks to Bolton.
I don't think Republicans are as interested in the idea of installing Pence as President as non-Republicans tend to surmise. Mostly because any Republican role in actually removing Trump would tear their party asunder.
And because Trump has a better shot at winning the election.
I think Bolton's main ambitions at the moment are (1) book sales and (2) keeping his reputation sufficiently anti-anti-Trump (not clearly in the tank for him, not clearly against him) that he can still cash in on consulting or think-tank positions once his current notoriety dies down.
Some time ago, I stumbled upon references to Timur Kuran's book, "Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification". I've been thinking about ordering it. I gather it goes on about information cascades. I guess this is just a formal way of restating LB's 10.
I think 30 is exactly right. Bolton's an odious fucker in all kinds of ways, but he is genuinely smart and talented at exploiting systems, and he's very obviously gaming the impeachment process and the media's coverage of it to sell books. So far, he's been quite successful at it.
I'm going to read free excerpts until I can get a library copy. Then I'm not going to read that.
I'm with pretty much everyone here in feeling that the only tension (which does not merit following the hearings closely) is whether there is any possible development that could finally prompt the Senate Repubs to throw him under the bus.
But if I'm honest, I kind of don't understand why they're still holding out -- most of them have already gotten what they wanted out of this deal: bigass tax cuts, a court system full of wingnuts, and federal regulation of practically everything throttled right down. I know they don't care about the public, but... a lot of them must have grandchildren, right? And if Trump keeps it up he really could cost a bunch of them their jobs. And surely some of them have got to be as tired of listening to this bullshit as the rest of us? There's GOT to be so many, "you know what, fuck this guy"s simmering there, just on the threshold of popping. What keeps them from going over the edge?
I think it's because they have no prayer of winning a presidential election if they don't have Trump's talent for making everyone froth at the mouth. They have no one else who can charm a crowd, for any meaning whatsoever of the word "charm".
Ie if they ditch Trump en masse, they're conceding the presidency.
35 is bullshit. Trump won despite being Trump. Literally any Republican candidate has a real chance at winning. Republicans always vote Republican.
34: I wonder that too, and conclude that they would rather be senators than anything else in the world, which we kinda already know because they did all the annoying things it takes to get there. They know they'll be primaried if they betray Trump and nothing is more important to them.
I don't think there is more to it. I always refer back to CA's budget crisis in the mid-Oughts. We only needed one Republican to pass a budget and we never got one. They never broke. The only thing that worked was a blue sweet, including a supermajority. That worked great.
And I think 37 last is the core of the answer to 34. Republicans are completely incoherent. The only defining feature of a Republican is one who always votes Republican. Hence any Republican senators voting against Trump will cease to be Republican and lose their primaries.
Cultural question: was there nearly this much fetishization of the criminal trial system during the Clinton process? All this "we must be impartial jurors" and "the prosecution" and "the defense" and "benefit of the doubt"? And not just on the GOP side. I wonder how much we have to blame Law & Order for.
34: Again, a large share of their base, at least 40%, is frothingly "Trump at any price". Just because the electeds and some other chunk of the base see Trump as instrumental, doesn't mean it would make sense for them to turn against him. They care more about internal cohesion and marching together than about winning every single election.
37 is right, but it is also true that the Trump Base -- maybe 1/2 of Republicans -. will never forgive those who voted to convict their Savior.
Naw. I'm with heebie on 35 and 36. Trump is pure id, and connected to people who wanted to feel that freedom (to be assholes). He beat the demographics back for four more years by a longshot and without him (especially with someone non-charismatic, like Pence), the Republicans won't pull it off again.
Literally any Republican candidate has a real chance at winning.
Pence does not have a chance in hell at winning a presidency. Americans like to be charmed and vote on the dumbest of things at the gut level that they don't understand. People stay home.
In fact, a lot of these senators might be happier without the White House for another span. Easier and more lucrative to just complain and block without being expected to accomplish anything!
That said, Romney and Collins are now implying they might want witnesses, so the floodgates could be breaking against all odds.
44: True, though with Trump in office and a Dem House they get to just complain, block and confirm judges, which they seem to be finding an awfully congenial position.
Pence would be running, probably, against either a woman or a Jewish socialist, in the year of the Trump Dolchstoss. You can't bet on anyone staying home. In general, do you not realize how precisely you are repeating your error of 2016? You were completely 100% confident Trump couldn't possibly win. Turns out Republicans vote for Republicans.
Right? Get to Be A Senator and not have to do anything? Best of both worlds!
Well, this time I'm canvassing and shit.
I don't think anyone is assuming another Republican can't win by saying it is less likely.
Except the "beat the demographics back for four more years" line. How long have the demographics been just about to save the Democrats? For twenty years? Thirty? Forty? Somehow it just never happens.
In general, do you not realize how precisely you are repeating your error of 2016? You were completely 100% confident Trump couldn't possibly win. Turns out Republicans vote for Republicans.
I was indeed 100% confident, but I also think that I was wrong for reasons that I understand thoroughly:
1. James Comey, who I blame entirely for 3/4 of the polling errors.
2. I underestimated sexism against HRC
3. I underestimated racism drummed up by Trump.
I think I correctly understood the greed of Republicans just in it for the tax cut. I also felt my personal opinion was shored up by confident bloggers and pundits, but I doubt that will repeat.
The point being: it's fairly easy to have a more accurate understanding of those factors heading into 2020.
Naw. I'm with heebie on 35 and 36. Trump is pure id, and connected to people who wanted to feel that freedom (to be assholes). He beat the demographics back for four more years by a longshot and without him (especially with someone non-charismatic, like Pence), the Republicans won't pull it off again.
They didn't do it last time (get a majority that is) and they seem to have a good chance of continuing winning without a majority. Do a little better in all the aging 90% white states (New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota and the rest of the rust belt) and that would even stave off losing Georgia and Arizona and North Carolina, I think. As long as they win Florida by 0.1% which they always do no matter who the candidate is or what year it is.
In other words, "Republicans will vote for Republicans" accounts accurately for the share of the vote that Romney and McCain got. Other factors also contributed to elect Trump.
Also, I don't think either a woman or a Jewish socialist is going to end up being the nominee. We're getting Biden.
50 - Eh. I was exactly aligned with heebie then, and agree with her on all her election analysis this time too. You weren't talking to me, but it applies to me as well.
I wont repeat my overconfidence of 2016, mostly by reminding myself that bad outcomes happen.
That said, Trump's election was a freak occurrence that happened because he fired Republicans up so much. I think Don Jr. could duplicate it, but Pence couldn't.
We're getting away from talk about the impeachment. I can hope that McConnell is feeling some uncomfortable pressure today. It'd be nice to see him take even a partial loss. Or have to work harder for his wins.
57: It was a freak occurrence, because Trump was such an obviously terrible choice. An ordinary idiot Republican winning would be ordinary.
Also, I don't think either a woman or a Jewish socialist is going to end up being the nominee.
Neither of these is stranger than a reality show landlord known for being a punchline. If Warren or Sanders can successfully connect, they can win.
60: The point isn't that they're strange, but that they are especially easy for Republicans to hate.
I agree that Biden is harder for Republicans to hate, but I think it's too simplistic to say that Warren or Bernie won't end up with it.
I do think Warren's ship seems to be sailing, unfortunately. That makes me sad.
(Also, eff being least-hateable-by-Republicans.)
My new belief is that charisma is orthogonal to everything, and dominates all other factors. Everything we thought was an absolute necessity (can't have "Hussein" in his name, must be sincere Christian, must not brag about sexual assault) is made irrelevant by charisma.
62-3: TBC, I think hateability is an additional reason to think that literally any Republican _could_ (not necessarily _will_) beat Warren or Sanders. I also think literally any Republican _could_ beat Biden, for a somewhat different mix of reasons. I also don't propose hateability as being in itself disqualifying for a Democrat.
Trump drew to an inside straight in 2016 and got lucky. It's hard to appreciate the impact of Comey in the final week, and Trump still had to get the right distribution of votes. Anyone who predicted a Trump victory based on him getting more votes was as wrong as the folks who predicted a Clinton victory.
Trump will need to be much less lucky this time around. He has presided over a terrific economy, and that's pretty much enough for any president to get re-elected. Pence would have similar advantages, but if he were running, it would be because of a scandal that implicates him, in part. (A disadvantage that Gerald Ford didn't have -- or barely had -- and Ford lost.)
I think a Trump victory in 2020 is a coin toss. The environment that would be necessary for a Pence candidacy would be crippling to that candidacy.
Trump will need to be much less lucky this time around. He has presided over a terrific economy, and that's pretty much enough for any president to get re-elected.
I actually think Trump has a tougher time this time around, because Democrats are so fiercely angry and mobilized and ready to turn out.
Like Megan, I am absolutely committed to not being optimistic. So in the dullest least excited voice possible, Democratic turnout in 2018 was astonishing.
I am absolutely not counting on anything though and will not let myself get any false sense of security, because then I will perish if Trump ekes it out again.
Boy, the adderall is not able to keep me from commenting here, apparently. Interesting.
Oh what, now everyone's going to be productive EXCEPT me? How is that fair?!
Don't worry, heebie, I'm not being productive.
Come on you guys. Don't you think it is a little possible that McConnell is at least somewhat miserable today? Can't we dwell on that?
Also, heh. Brexit is in 4 days and isn't even a major story today. Man, 2020 is gonna be a fire hose.
They know they'll be primaried if they betray Trump and nothing is more important to them.
I mean, this must be right because I can't think of anything else, but as a person who has made a number of objectively non-optimal life decisions based on "I can't take this shit anymore," I find it hard to relate to.
a large share of their base, at least 40%, is frothingly "Trump at any price"
I don't exactly believe this, by which I mean, that 40% may believe it, but all it would take is a new set of talking points distributed to Fox personalities to redirect this energy. My parents are both huge MAGAbots so I get to observe the pathology closely and little in their past predicts an attraction to Trump in particular, as a personality. It seems much more about who they perceive is being told to fuck off, which can be done in so many different ways. If, to the best of my ability, I imagine myself as an amoral Republican in a position of power, I can imagine so many other ways to give the people what they want in this regard with less hassle than what comes attached to Trump.
Heebie, this may not be the place, and is probably not the time as it's quite new, but I'm interested to hear about your adderall experience. Someday, somewhere.
Don't you think it is a little possible that McConnell is at least somewhat miserable today? Can't we dwell on that?
I'm going to hold that close and stroke it like a super-villain's Persian cat.
51: I don't think anyone is assuming another Republican can't win by saying it is less likely.
You are as usual generous to a fault. What Heebie said, actually, was: Pence does not have a chance in hell at winning a presidency.
That sounds like assumption to me.
The environment that would be necessary for a Pence candidacy would be crippling to that candidacy.
This doesn't convince me. Trump is nothing but scandal, and his numbers never drop below his personal floor. I don't see why in principle Pence can't double down as Trump's loyal right hand and keep above that same floor. IIRC that floor is lower than most presidents have historically had when reelected, so I agree the environment would be difficult. I don't see that it would be crippling.
I don't want to spend more time on this, so I'll reiterate my original position:
Literally any Republican candidate has a real chance at winning.
"A real chance" means winning as few as a couple of hundred thousand votes. It's an extremely low bar.
I once gave the San Andreas fault a 20% tip when it failed to bring the appetizer before the check.
Trump is nothing but scandal, and his numbers never drop below his personal floor.
The key phrase here is "his personal floor." Trump has a different relationship to scandal than other politicians, and if we posit a situation where Trump is out, then more-or-less by definition, we are talking about a situation where his popularity has fallen below that floor. That's what I meant by "the environment that would be necessary for a Pence candidacy." Though I suppose a Trump assassination or illness could be a real boost for Pence.
I don't see why in principle Pence can't double down as Trump's loyal right hand and keep above that same floor.
I didn't say this "can't" happen. Trump soundly beat a lot of prominent Republicans to become president, though, so the idea that his floor represents the floor of Republicans in general seems pretty clearly wrong. (There's a lot of loose talk about how Trump maintains his popularity despite his personal characteristics, but that seems plainly wrong.
Literally any Republican candidate has a real chance at winning.
Sure.
78: Comity.
Trump has a different relationship to scandal
True. But I think his immunity to scandal also indicates the amorality of Republican voters. How much other Republicans can benefit from that amorality I don't think we know yet.
Except we do know. "It's ok if you're Republican", right? So it's a more specific question, whether Pence would be able to bluster away his complicity in the Ukraine affair.
Swopey, I wrote up my initial thoughts here if you want a rambly musing of my first two days on Adderall.
Oh. Go to the link then scroll down.
The local paper endorsed Amy today. Klaubachermentum!
I've been somewhat involved with the Warren campaign, and the vibe I get seems to be that while the numbers fore her right now aren't promising, basically anything can happen in the next few weeks. And I think that's true.
That was kind of long, but I think I got the gist of it. Bring in your kid's urine if you want to get stimulants from your doctor.
If Trump is successfully removed from office, or loses a primary, or maybe even loses the general, I can't imagine he'd be kind to the Republicans. Everyone gets a chance to have their own dolchstoßlegende.
He's going to be like that angry German guy in the meme videos.
Then, someday, your kid can use your urine to get a job.
85: That's nice to hear. I actually think she's the strongest candidate, not just the strongest president.
||
Bleg: history of Louis XI of France?
|>
Yeah, I think Amy is a strong candidate but as president she would annoy the shit out of me.
In the hypothetical world where Pence runs in place of an impeached/removed Trump, I think Pence would campaign on (1) pardoning Trump, (2) leading the fight for a constitutional amendment that lets Trump come back and be President again, (3) finishing WALL, (4) adding Trump to Mt. Rushmore, and (5) changing the name to Mt. Trumpmore.
Nah, Pence and every other Republican would suddenly forget they ever even heard of Trump.
81: thanks for the link. I was curious!
85 is nice to hear. I can't shake my fatalism that we're in for a slow slog of delegate counting that will end up with Biden awkwardly straddling the top of the heap, but I really prefer Warren to anyone else and would love to be wrong.
Best case scenario: Trump dies like Catherine the Great should have died if history was any fun and Pence was holding the rope to lower the horse but slipped and this was on live TV. Then we get Warren 50%, Cruz 44%, Jill Stein 6%.
It's more realistic than a Senate conviction.
Also the horse eats McConnell and Kavanaugh.
Warren has brought together moderates and progressives on and formerly on the SF Board of Supervisors who typically are at each other's throats.
They know they'll be primaried if they betray Trump and nothing is more important to them.
I think they think (probably correctly) they'll be shot in the head if they betray Trump. Because once Trump has been removed from office, he will be getting saturation coverage, and for every bit of it he will be naming all 20 of those senators as traitors and inciting his supporters to kill them.
To the extent that Trump-supporting guys are honest in Facebook comments, the ones whose echoes I hear from KS and LA:
* believe that the Democrats are overreaching,
* believe that the trial is a farce because the Democrats have made it that way, that all of the facts are on Trump's side,
* believe that the House case is thrown together and flimsy,
* do not think that Trump is trying to corrupt the 2020 election (or more precisely question whether the House managers have and proof that that is what Trump is trying to do),
* do not believe there was any collusion with Russia in 2016,
* believe that the accusers weren't smart enough to build a case on factually based evidence instead of emotionally based accusations,
* etc.
In short, I am sure that the next Democrat elected president will find plenty of common ground with Republicans so we should rush to choose the candidate most willing to accommodate that.
|| Just got an email from Bernie Sanders asking me to donate to the DNC. This confirms my impression that he's sold out. There's still no candidate for a True Socialist. ||
||
Enlightened. Topless. Compulsory.
The ethnic group has suffered discrimination by the Swedish state, with the Institute for Race Biology from 1922 carrying out humiliating physical examinations of Sámi men, women and children, and Sami children in the 1930s forcibly taken from the parents, sent to boarding schools and banned from speaking their languages.|>
No, I am not getting my hopes up for removal. No, I have no expectations that Republicans will do the right thing. But all the news is saying that McConnell doesn't have the votes to prevent the Senate from calling witnesses and if we change our intentions for this process to 'at least make McConnell suffer during it', I think we can reasonably hope that he is unhappy right now.
Pence just doesn't have Trump's personal characteristics. I'm sure he's every bit as full of contempt for liberals, immigrants, and people of color as Trump, but I just don't see him making the sale with the same abandon. To use an analogy, Trump burned his ships when he landed on that shore. Pence doesn't have the balls to do it.
It's not just re-election. Republican senators who cross Trump also have to worry about whether they'll be able to dispense patronage. And do pretty much any of the things that make being in office worth all the bother.
For those who want all their social commentary in the form of Simpsons references. (Not actually bad, in this case.)
It turns out, I did want my social commentary that way, but didn't know before.
That's social commentary from Tony the Tiger.
at least make McConnell suffer
The second most important political goal of the moment.
||
The three European security elephants will resonate differently depending on which side of the Atlantic you reside.|>
Rebuilding the Atlantic security environment post-Trump will be a mammoth task.
Of course if he wins re-election or is replaced by someone similar, that'll be a mahout point.
Tusk might've been up to it, but he's no longer with us.
Most politicians involved have only a very hathi understanding of the situation.
EUROPE GODDAMN WISHES IT HAD SECURITY ELEPHANTS
The three European security elephants are as follows: two which are always on show, and hence expertly groomed and accoutred, known as the Elephants of Style, and a third elephant kept hidden until required, known as the Elephant of Surprise.
122 overlooks those belonging to the emperor, those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush, and those that from afar look like flies.
My esteemed colleague is correct. African security elephants are far superior.
||
For those keeping score:|>Futures prices for soybeans -- historically the most valuable U.S. export to China -- have slumped 4.4% in Chicago since the day before the deal was signed.
Hog prices -- pork is the preferred red meat among Chinese consumers -- are 4.9% lower over the same time period.
Cotton is down 1.4% since mid-January, after reaching an eight-month high two days before the China accord was signed.
U.S. wheat is little changed since the signing ceremony. China has indeed bought the grain, but from Australia, Canada and France as part of WTO quotas.
Yes. My poor mother is still losing money on the beans.
Wow, that has the potential to make an awful thing much, much worse.
81: Thanks for sharing. I've just this month started on the path to making improvements in my brain chemistry and already I've been wayyyyy more productive. Um, except right now.
I stopped eating chicken tenders and fries for lunch every work day. I'm trying to improve by blood.
It worked. My blood pressure was normal just now.
It could be the essential oils I've been taking.
No modern medicine for me. Just diet and exercise and oil of Lisinopril.
My new diet is all about reds, vitamin C, and cocaine.
I'm not a doctor, but I things mixing reds and cocaine is bad.
I thought Spike had left the Caribbean.
You can still get citrus fruit up north. Plenty of vitamin C.
Turns out you can get vitamin C by chewing granite.
If you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.
Most of the time we're sitting and crying at home
Cry, cry, masturbate, cry.
Yeah, like I said: most of the time we're sitting and crying.
EW just scheduled town hall here this coming Tuesday. So I guess she's assuming impeachment hearings will be over by then?
known as the Elephants of Style
YOU LEFT OUT THE ELEPHANTS OF DENIAL!
If you don't want to skip any, you have to follow the Periodic Table of Elephants.
I KNOW I'M BIG, BUT IT'S RUDE TO STARE.
That's the one he uses to send the dickpix.
UNSUBTLE, BRO.
Johnson said that 402,000 people signed up to volunteer for Democratic candidates or progressive causes in the month leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats gained 41 congressional seats and took control of the House of Representatives. As of Friday afternoon, the number who had volunteered around the country in the month of January had reached 428,000, with thousands of new registrants joining each day.
I am delighted to discover that there's a National Hot Dog and Sausage Council (NHDSC).
Ideally there would be two, one insisting that a hot dog is a type of sandwich and the other that it is not.