Weekend Open Thread for May 12-14, 2017

While the President continues to ponder replacing his press secretary with Twitter decrees and the Labour Party implodes before our eyes, it is time for this weekend’s open thread:

(1)  What is the appropriate way for Democrats to respond to President Trump and maximize their electoral chances in 2018 and 2020?

(2)  What is the appropriate way for Republicans to respond to President Trump and maximize their electoral chances in 2018 and 2020?

(3) Should municipal offices be elected on a partisan basis?

And since its time for the weekend, one of my favorite film clips of all time.

Previous Post Next Post

259 Comments

  • rdelbov May 12, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    In municipal areas where the GOP dominants the elections needs to be partisan. In other locales I prefer non-partisan elections.

    As far as 2018/2020 pass bills or enact executive orders that improve the short term and or long term economic health of Americans. If the GOP does that we will be just fine in 2018/2020 elections.

  • davybaby May 12, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    1. Total obstructionism.
    2. It’s every man (or woman) for himself/herself. Do what is necessary to survive.
    3. Yes. Sure, there isn’t a Democratic or Republican way to fill potholes, but I think it’s better for the voters to have more information about candidates rather than less.

  • rdelbov May 12, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    Grassley on blue slips

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/grassley-shows-flexibility-blue-slips-appellate-vacancy

    A recent Huffpo story told what I consider an out and out untruth (I hesitate to say “lie”) on the use of blue slips.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/11/the-judicial-confirmation-wars-are-about-to-escalate/

    Toomey did not bother taking note of Haywood’s nomination because it was made in June of 2016. Only one Obama judge to the Circuit court was voted on in 2016. Haywood’s failure had nothing to do with “blue slip” tradition. Only two Obama circuit court judges were confirmed in 2015/2016 because of payback to 2013 nuclear option move on judges. White house always had preference on Circuit court nominees. I might add controlling the senate is even more important!!! Now with the Reid motion it only takes 51 votes to work a party’s will.

    • prsteve11 May 12, 2017 at 9:29 pm

      Great link. If the Dems had legitimate concerns about a nominee, that’s one thing, but after the Gorsuch filibuster, it’s clear that the Dems just want to obstruct. That can’t be allowed.


      SC-03, Conservative Republican

      • rdelbov May 12, 2017 at 10:54 pm

        As I noted before historically Presidents have had great leeway in nominating Circuit Court judges. A good example of that was Ike nominating moderate R judges to the 5th circuit during the 1950s. Or for that matter Jimmy Carter nominating 55 Circuit court judges in basically 3 years.

        Not to re-fight the court wars here but liberal Ds after 1992 (or actually after 1986 senate takeover) set numerous new precedents for judges are picked and confirmed. The worst idea is the senatorial screening commission. Liberal D senators (and yes some R senators where there are D senators) have a screening committee. They pre-screen district and circuit court judges and then force the President to nominate their choices. Umm it is advice and consent folks–not take it or leave when it comes to Presidential nominations. Of one reason there are so many vacanies in TX and GA courts is that GOP senators are playing tit for tat.

        The beauty of the matter now is that the GOP now has the Presidency, the senate and the 51 vote nuclear option rule. It is time to rock and roll on Circuit nominations plus states where the GOP has both senate slots. Plus if D Senators want to deal that is fine-if not states like CA, NY and WA are likely to see many vacancies.

    • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 2:28 pm

      Yeah this Daily Caller article really doesn’t tell the reader that the blanket use of blue slips to shoot down circuit court nominations is not really the case anymore, unlike with district court judges. Generally speaking if the President’s party controls the senate, an opposition party senator’s objection to an appeals court judge nominee from his/her state would be overlooked and not block the nomination unless the senator presents a very good reason for the objection. This Daily Caller article really is misleading.

      • rdelbov May 13, 2017 at 5:14 pm

        Bingo it is the rule of 51 that applies in many cases. When the party that is the same as the white house has also has 51 senate seats then it is time to rock and roll on judges!!!! On the flip when the senate control is opposite the white house it is grunt and groan time on judges.

        During the 2015-2016 time period the GOP only confirmed two circuit court judges and hardly had 20 district judges confirmed. No no it was not blue slip-it was the rule of 51.

  • Jon May 12, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    #3 Not a good idea for this local area if looking at local immediate effects. The D primary in St Louis City has been the real election for decades.
    While in St Louis County where it is all non-partisan there are some mayors who self-id as Republican in heavy D areas. With a partisan election some of them wouldn’t get elected but most of the others would self-id as Democrat to get elected.
    Now, looking at a longer view; places with partisan local elections could be potential breeding grounds for both DINOs and RINOs on their way to seeking state legislative office as they officially adopt whichever partisan label is needed to get into office earlier.


    45, M, MO-02

    • rdelbov May 12, 2017 at 6:56 pm

      J-on a more serious note. I would prefer to have all states register by party-with closed primaries. Frankly we do have partisan elections here in Shelby county and somehow the GOP is still holding on to most offices. I guess until we one party overwhelming R or D partisan elections suit me. At least around here in TN

      • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 7:58 pm

        Well, the Shelby GOP never actually had to hang on. The GOP had captured a few lower offices, but the white Dems had handed everything else off to the black Dems. Then a bunch of those black Dems had scandals. The GOP managed to parlay those scandals into victories as the local good government party. They continue to do that to this day, mostly because the Dems usually put up crazy people or risible idiots/clowns. Now the local conventional wisdom is that the Shelby GOP is the the party of not stealing and not being anti-white racists. That gets them good numbers among middle-class blacks and allows them to be the racial uniters instead of the dividers that 40% of the black Dems are. If that ever breaks down, the party will be in trouble. Until then, though, it makes them one of the most successful local GOPs anywhere.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 12, 2017 at 10:28 pm

          “Then a bunch of those black Dems had scandals. The GOP managed to parlay those scandals into victories as the local good government party. They continue to do that to this day, mostly because the Dems usually put up crazy people or risible idiots/clowns. Now the local conventional wisdom is that the Shelby GOP is the the party of not stealing and not being anti-white racists. ”

          Kind of sounds like a microcosm for why the GOP remains competitive nationwide despite having a miserably unpopular agenda, since that latest sentence is usually the rationale I hear from people about why they are Republicans.


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • rdelbov May 12, 2017 at 10:57 pm

          AC Wharton was County Mayor for two terms. I was concerned we would never elect a GOP county again. We got a yuge break in 2010 when the Ds splintered and had their woes. Stay tuned and I guess we will see how 2018 plays out.

          • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 11:11 pm

            Yes, but his original support base was very white for a black Dem. As for 2018, I may be involved in that.


            24, R, TN-09
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

  • Red Oaks May 12, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    On Question #3 I lean towards supporting a Louisiana-style jungle primary November/December of even years election with partisan labels next to names. If you have traditional party primaries to decide nominees, then much of time the election is decided in the primary and voters in the wrong party are left without any influence. Scrapping party labels from the ballot Nebraska Senate style can lead to Nebraska style surprise/disappointing governing, which I don’t want. Thus the LA system is my overall preferred choice. However, when it comes to municipal offices my most important concern is the power of local governments relative to states. I favor very weak local governments in relation to state legislatures/governors.


    MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

  • TexasR May 12, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    1. Give him enough rope to hang himself.
    2. Fight every one of his bad ideas every step of the way.
    3. No opinion.


    Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
    Be careful what you wish for

  • jncca May 12, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    1. Highlight everything he does that is unpopular and run on a relentlessly anti-Trump message outside of deep red areas. Advocate for being a “check on Trump.” A check on Trump should be popular everywhere but West Virginia and North Dakota.

    2. The Rubio method worked well.

    3. No, and neither should governors.


    24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

  • fzw May 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    1. Do everything possible to make sure he doesn’t get anything done. Overtime it will wear off the perceived teflon he has that he’s a person who’s a doer.
    Agree with jncca on the check-on-Trump argument. I think that’s a good message even in places like MO and IN. Better than “send another R to help Trump get things done!”
    2. I don’t know if the Rubio/Toomey method will work now that he’s actually President and you can’t really say “I won’t talk about Donald Trump.” I think this is a more case-by-case basis depending on the state.
    3. Non-partisan for locales <100,000. Partisan for more. Helps gives voters in bigger media markets more info on a candidate than they otherwise would have.


    Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
    R-leaning Indy.

    • GOPTarHeel May 12, 2017 at 8:25 pm

      Your #3 basically means that only Democrats get elected to large cities while Democrats also slip under the radar in Republican leaning areas.


      R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

      • jncca May 12, 2017 at 8:30 pm

        #3 also makes no sense to me. In big cities the candidates can afford to run TV ads so voters learn about them. In smaller cities they don’t, so it’s down to mailpieces or nothing.


        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 8:32 pm

          Well, you can have a big door-to-door operation. In fairness, though, that takes an unusual amount of intense support or a lot of money.


          24, R, TN-09
          Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 8:31 pm

        It helps Rs in a few areas where the GOP has a good local brand. However, it disproportionately helps Dems overall.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • fzw May 12, 2017 at 8:49 pm

        Really? There’s probably far more Republican-leaning cities with populations over 100,000. That’s almost any notable exurb/suburb. Also the familiarity with the local mayor is probably less in a city of 250,000 than it would be 5,000. So it gives voters an idea of what they stand for

        Mayoral races in smaller cities tend to be far less partisan and more localized as it is. Making them partisan would make it harder for good governance IMO.


        Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
        R-leaning Indy.

        • Republican Michigander May 12, 2017 at 9:03 pm

          “Really? There’s probably far more Republican-leaning cities with populations over 100,000. ”
          I doubt it. I may be off base, but there aren’t as many 100K areas as people think.

          Michigan is ranked 10th in population nationally. There’s only a handful of cities with 100K.
          1. Detroit 650-700K – 95% D
          2. Grand Rapids – 189K – D with some R pockets
          3. Warren – 135K – D with some R pockets
          4. Sterling Heights – 130K – D locally, swingish overall
          5. Ann Arbor – 115K – D
          6. Lansing – 114K – D

          Flint (D), Dearborn (D), and Livonia (slight R) used to be over 100K.

          Clinton Twp may now be over 100K. That leans D but is winnable.


          MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

          • fzw May 12, 2017 at 9:08 pm

            Nationally, there’s 285 cities over 100,000. People often overlook smaller Republican-leaning cities like Pensacola, Mobile, Tuscaloosa, all the DFW suburbs, Wichita, OKC, College Station, Sarasota, Hialeah, O’Fallon, Springfield (MO and IL), and many more. Non-partisan elections probably won’t lead to Republicans leading cities like Chicago, NYC, or LA anyways.


            Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
            R-leaning Indy.

            • Red Oaks May 12, 2017 at 9:32 pm

              And roughly 70 of those 285 cities are in California – not exactly territory friendly to the GOP. I don’t know the politics of all of those CA cities well but the top 8 are pretty darn Democratic. Having one rule for large cities and another for smaller cities seems pretty bizarre to me.


              MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

              • fzw May 12, 2017 at 9:43 pm

                That’s basically how the houses of Congress were based off, no? Population disparities. But disregard I ever came up with this idea, because it’s pretty flawed. We should just make it all non-partisan. I don’t want mayors making abortion or something else stupid like that an issue when mayors have little say over that kind of thing.

                But to Cali, there’s a lot of Republican (or pre-Trump) leaning suburbs over 100,000. Oceanside, the Orange County cities.


                Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                R-leaning Indy.

                • Red Oaks May 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

                  OK, well I’m not necessarily that passionate about the partisan vs. nonpartisan nature of municipal anyway. I would just rather strip local governments of most of their power and concentrate it in the state capitals like it is done in Delaware so that this issue wouldn’t matter much.


                  MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                  • w920us May 12, 2017 at 10:30 pm

                    I’m not aware of Delaware concentrating power in the state government. Outside of the fact that much of the state population resides in unincorporated area.


                    R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
                    #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

                    • Red Oaks May 12, 2017 at 10:56 pm

                      Actually it does.

                      Maintaining roads is overwhelmingly a state function – “In 2009, DelDOT maintained 13,507 lane miles of roads, totaling 89 percent of the state’s public roadway system; the remaining public road miles are under the supervision of individual municipalities. This far exceeds the United States national average of 20 percent for state department of transportation maintenance responsibility” (from Wikipedia). Also “Most functions which are handled on a county-by-county basis in other states – such as court and law enforcement – have been centralized in Delaware, leading to a significant concentration of power in the Delaware state government.”

                      Notably, Delaware only has one local government with its own income tax (Wilmington-only about 8% of the population) and no local sales taxes at all. Local property taxes are among the lowest in the country.

                      As a result of all of the above there really are no significant local political machines because there isn’t much power to fight over. This also has the benefit of avoiding corrupt and poorly run local governments that go broke and need state bailouts. Nobody wants more Detroit’s and Atlantic City’s.


                      MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                    • w920us May 13, 2017 at 12:12 am

                      Yeah after reading your post I was wondering if that has been a consequence of having such a large portion of the state living in unincorporated area. And you’re right the three counties also don’t get involved in certain government functions.


                      R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
                      #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

                    • Jon May 13, 2017 at 12:11 pm

                      Could also be a function of some other states having counties that are geographically bigger than the entire state of Delaware.


                      45, M, MO-02

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 12:50 pm

                      @jon – exactly. This to me sounds like a better argument for having more Delaware-sized states rather than one for having less powerful local government.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                    • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 1:27 pm

                      Shamlet,

                      Actually splitting up states into smaller pieces sounds like an extremely unrealistic goal compared to weakening local government.

                      Canadian provinces are pretty large geographically and they seem to successfully consolidate power in the provincial legislatures so it is doable even in large states.

                      Another benefit to stripping local governments of their power is that it would provide for more effective policy victories for Republicans/conservatives/libertarians/center-right types. See the following article from Governing Magazine from 2 years ago:
                      http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-political-party-success-president-governor-congress-mayor.html

                      It notes that the GOP does quite well in gubernatorial races (not to mention state legislatures) but very poorly in big city mayoral races. Shifting control out of City Hall and into the State Capital will on average lead to more policy wins.


                      MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                    • Ryan_in_SEPA May 13, 2017 at 1:44 pm

                      I see power shifting as a good way to push municipal governments to consolidate in states like Pennsylvania. It is absurd that Allegheny County has 100+ municipal governments. There are a lot of inefficiencies and parochial loving nonsense they encourage. The best way to encourage municipal consolidations is to strip small municipal governments of power and send it to the state or county level. A good one would be stripping small municipal governments of zoning and law enforcement powers. Strip municipalities under 20,000 of the ability to have a police department and zoning authority and you would see a lot of consolidations.


                      31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 1:56 pm

                      @Red Oaks – I couldn’t disagree more. Once you get to a critical mass to have a competent government based off something other than speeding ticket revenue (say 50K or so) I think pushing things to as small a level as possible is the way to get the maximum amount of conservative policy, for the simple reason that it makes it easier for people to vote with their feet and choose the policies that are right for them. The Southern Tier of NY, for example, is being suffocated because New York City is scared of fracking even though there is no reason for them to have any impact on each other. Democrats dominate mayoral offices because Democrats dominate cities. But if you were to make a “city” out of the southern tier of NYS it would certainly have more conservative policy outcomes than letting the state set all its policies.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                    • Jon May 13, 2017 at 2:00 pm

                      The main reason for original incorporation of the St Louis County municipalities that incorporated after C. 1950 was to take control of local zoning.

                      On the absurd small size there is an incorporated city nearby whose 2010 population was 13 and there are fourteen that are under 500 population. There is another incorporated city whose area is only 12.8 acres and an additional fourteen whose land area is <= 0.1 square mile.


                      45, M, MO-02

                    • Jon May 13, 2017 at 2:08 pm

                      St Louis County only has one incorporated city at 50K and it’s an ok-ish town to live in.
                      Note that the county seat’s population is 16,000 and seen as a good place to live.

                      Amount of population needed to have functioning govt without being a speed trap / other fee abuse depends upon the tax base. The north county municipalities don’t have the tax base


                      45, M, MO-02

                    • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 2:50 pm

                      @Shamlet,

                      Even assuming you’re right about the southern tier, that is just New York State, which has Democratic governance at the state level. The opposite issue is far more common – people living in areas strangled by restrictive and corrupt local government but having Republican state governments come to the rescue. In my state of MI and many other states too much local control has been a disaster.

                      Some more reasons to support state consolidation of power:
                      1. Governors constantly have to appoint emergency managers, sign consent agreements, and deliver bailouts to deal with poorly run cities. Townships, which by design have less local power and control than cities, less frequently need intervention from the state.
                      2. Local governments are almost without exception enemies of positive tax reform. When Snyder, Calley, and the MI GOP legislature wanted to abolish the destructive Personal Property Tax (PPT) the biggest barrier that led to a watered down bill were the local governments and their lobbyists whining about lost revenue. Other states have had the same problem when trying to improve their tax climates.
                      3. Left to their own devises, local governments are the worst when it comes to restrictive zoning. States governments by their nature tend to be more libertarian in regards to land development and property reuse.
                      4. Local governments if they are allowed to by state law will sometimes pass freedom crushing rules like city residency requirements on their workers. State government doesn’t care if someone lives in Livonia and commutes to Detroit. Thankfully in the mid-1990’s the state-level MI GOP abolished this practice.
                      5. Allowing too much local control creates a compliance nightmare for businesses in having to deal with too many disparate laws. I deal with 22 City Income Taxes on a regular basis but luckily there are no local sales taxes here. Some states have it much worse with thousands of locals jurisdictions with their own separate taxes. It’s one thing for a company to deal with 50 different state laws. Handling thousands of local jurisdictions is exponentially worse. Remember when Democrats in Pennsylvania were trying to impose mandatory paid time off requirements on a city by city basis? What a pain that would be to deal with!
                      6. Powerful local school districts mean less school choice. The old fashioned system in much of the US involved hundreds of local school districts each raising their own local taxes and having a monopoly over a given geographic area. Starting particularly in the 1990s (especially in MI with Proposal A in 1995) state governments began transferring control of finance of K-12 schools from the local to the state level. Now instead of a school system’s revenue being tied to a local tax base, it is tied to how many students they enroll because the state gives out money on a per-student basis. Thus public schools have an incentive to allow children to attend regardless of their parent’s residency, which greatly improves parent’s options. Charter schools are also a direct result of this local to state shift in responsibility. Since Republicans are the party of school choice they should be supporting the state taking over the financing of local schools.


                      MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm

                      This is a very interesting discussion, though I would remind you that Republicans’ dominance at the state level is a relatively new phenomenon in historical terms. Here are my thoughts:

                      1. State governments can be worse when the wrong people are in charge. Would you rather have the DuPage County board or Mike Madigan in control of you if you lived in Wheaton, IL? Or heck, to make it bipartisan, the Nebraska legislature vs. say, Sarpy County.
                      2. Much of that depends on the individual tax system – if the local governments have their own revenue streams it doesn’t matter what happens at the state level.
                      3. This is a feature, not a bug, for me. Restrictive zoning can be a good thing if it separates out functions of life so that people can live pleasantly and maintain their property values. Again, the key is making the jurisdictions small enough so that people can vote with their feet and place their homes or commercial activities where the climate is best.
                      4. So what? Again, vote with your feet if you don’t like it. I frankly like the idea of forcing the civil service to be invested in their municipality’s quality.
                      5. This I can understand, though in some ways it just puts pressure on businesses to consolidate their operations in as few jurisdictions as possible, which could lead to beneficial competition between areas for jobs and business.
                      6. I guess I’m abivalent on this – I see your argument but I would also make the other argument that excessively large school districts can lead to powerful teachers’ unions that become a tail wagging the dog. Think about San Antonio, for example – it has 16 school districts and some of them on the north side are far better than would be the case if the city were one.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                    • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm

                      @Shamlet,

                      I can see there is some distance between us in terms of what we view as the proper size and role of government so I won’t continue to stress some of these arguments. I’ll just close with three points:

                      A. “Would you rather have the DuPage County board or Mike Madigan in control of you if you lived in Wheaton, IL?” I would take just Mike Madigan. A powerful DuPage County board means more regulation, taxes, zoning, and government interference on top of anything the State of IL does. Strong local governments tend to work only in one direction – towards more statism. To pick just one issue for example, consider the minimum wage. All 50 states have them. If local municipalities were given more discretion over this area some of them would pass higher minimum wages but I doubt the state would let any get away with going lower than the state minimum. Now maybe you are less libertarian than I am and things like this don’t mean much to you but I bring this up to explain part of why I dislike strong local control so much.

                      B. I get your point about “voting with your feet” but we already have a 50 state federal republic for that. Our country is called the United States of America; not the United Counties, Cities, Townships, and Overlapping Special Purposes Governmental Districts of America.

                      C. To clarify my position on schools – I don’t want large school districts; I want zero school districts. In my idea public K-12 school system, there are no school district boundaries at all. The schools accept kids regardless of residency and the states provide 100% of the funding in the form of per pupil grants. This is essentially what charter schools are and charter schools are where teachers unions barely exist.


                      MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 4:45 pm

                      @Shamlet “This is a feature, not a bug, for me. Restrictive zoning can be a good thing if it separates out functions of life so that people can live pleasantly and maintain their property values. ”

                      Not North-American style zoning. Setting aside a specific property only for one specific business isn’t zoning – it’s Soviet-style central planning. Especially when zoning is used as a way to pick and choose winners/losers in local small businesses (ie zone out the competitor). A lot of countries zone by setting a maximum “disturbance”-level for each plot of land as to make sure nothing too disruptive happens in residential neighborhoods. But the American-style central planning zoning style is truly no better than a Communist centrally planned state. If anything it’s worse, since the rationale is typically cronyism and racism.

                      It’s also a pretty unique thing. You don’t really see it in Europe or East Asia or anything. Euclidean zoning was born in America and nobody else wants it. I’ve heard it argued that it only exists because of the United States’ racial history (how we have both a large number of people who don’t want to live near minorities as well as many minorities).


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 4:50 pm

                      @RO – valid points all and I think it’s time to agree to disagree on the rest – at the end of the day keeping government close to the voters and keeping a maximum freedom of choice will trump advancing limited government everywhere for me (see my signature) – but I respect the opposite opinion. I will only say that voting with your feet is a lot easier when you only have to move one town over instead of a state away. Moving from Balitmore City to Carroll County is a lot simpler than moving from Maryland to West Virginia.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 4:53 pm

                      @VBKC – In a sense you’re making my point. By allowing municipalities the freedom to regulate (or even overregulate) their land use you are creating an economy of choice. Palo Alto works for the people that can afford to live there, but it’s also pushing a lot of economic activity to Houston. All I’m advocating is for allowing local areas the freedom to determine the tradeoffs they want to make on their own.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 4:58 pm

                      @Shamlet

                      There has to be a certain point where we don’t want localities to act badly. Jim Crow shifted a lot of economic activity from the South (via the Great Migration) to the North, creating a system that many people left behind supported. That does not mean Jim Crow was ever acceptable.

                      And this also exists because we’ve hamstringed governments in a way. Nobody likes Euclidean zoning. But it’s the only zoning tool that the courts have allowed local governments to use. Example #666 of why the courts are utter trash and need to be taken down 666 pegs.


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 5:02 pm

                      @VBKC – well, sure. But practically what you will get if you start transferring power up the food chain is not Randian zero-land-use-restrictions but more AFFH-type shit that’s going to make the economic distortion problem worse.


                      R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

                  • w920us May 12, 2017 at 10:43 pm

                    Wow. My native state is now at an estimated population of 952,000 in the 2016 estimates. I wonder if Delaware will crack the 1 million mark by 2020.


                    R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
                    #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

                    • californianintexas May 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm

                      If Delaware continues growing at 1% a year like it is now, then it will reach 988K in 2020. If growth picks up a little in the next 4 years, then it could eclipse 1 million.


                      34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

              • Left Coast Libertarian May 13, 2017 at 9:05 am

                I saw a statistic about two years ago that said that 43% of local elected officials in California are Republicans. We do extremely well in non-partisan elections. California’s top 10 cities all have populations of 350k+ and the GOP has the mayors of 3 of them. Sure, we don’t do well in the Bay area, but there are cities in Los Angeles county with Republican mayors.

          • Jon May 12, 2017 at 10:27 pm

            Not many in Missouri either:

            #1 Kansas City : Heavy D
            #2 St Louis City : Even heavier D
            #3 Springfield : Leans R, but not as much as its county outside the city.
            #4 Independence City: Tilts D
            #5 Colombia: Within just the city limits, Leans D. The rest of the county outside the city brings the county as a whole back to swing territory.

            I saw references to exurbs in this thread: Within Missouri, the bulk of exurban population lives in unincorporated areas. To the extent that an area incorporating as a city would be seen as a clear sign that it’s transitioning from exurban to regular suburban.


            45, M, MO-02

    • prsteve11 May 12, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      The irony of the Rubio/Toomey method is that Donald Trump carried both of their states, meaning their method looks a little pointless.


      SC-03, Conservative Republican

      • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 10:02 pm

        Well, it’s more about coalitions and if a Republican win a certain type of area or not despite Trump’s performance there.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • Ryan_in_SEPA May 13, 2017 at 12:15 pm

          Toomey did outperform Trump though.


          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

  • Conservative First May 12, 2017 at 8:17 pm

    MI-Gov: Schuette leads R primary 32-11, Fieger leads D primary 21-20.
    http://www.theballengerreport.com/fieger-schuette-lead-early-poll-2018-michigan-governors-race/

  • Aday97 May 12, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Random question, does anyone happen to have the Rubio vs Murphy numbers by district? I’m looking real hard, thanks haha.

  • Republican Michigander May 12, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    “”””(1) What is the appropriate way for Democrats to respond to President Trump and maximize their electoral chances in 2018 and 2020?”””

    Fight him on economics, and avoid issues like gun control (nationally).

    “””(2) What is the appropriate way for Republicans to respond to President Trump and maximize their electoral chances in 2018 and 2020?””””

    Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell frankly need to get things done. The worst thing for Trump for 2018 is to not get things done. The anti-Trump D base will be energized no matter what. R’s need the silent majority out to vote. If stuff isn’t getting done, they won’t vote. The worst thing that can happen to Trump overall is for him to be considered “just another politician”

    “””(3) Should municipal offices be elected on a partisan basis?”””

    Depends on where. LOL. Overall, I’d say yes, because geography favors R’s.


    MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

  • Red Oaks May 12, 2017 at 9:11 pm

    Straight ticket voting is almost gone in Texas. It only needs a vote by the whole State Senate and the governor’s signature.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/senate-committee-advances-straight-ticket-voting-ban/


    MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

  • Mike1965 May 12, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    San Antonio Mayor: Former Mayor Castro to endorse Ron Nirenberg.

    http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Former-Mayor-Castro-to-endorse-Ron-Nirenberg-11143093.php

    Good, I really want to see Ivy Taylor go down.


    #ThanksObama

  • Mike1965 May 12, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    Sen. John Cornyn among those who will be interviewed for FBI Director.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/acting-fbi-director-mccabe-sen-john-cornyn-among-four-who-will-interview-for-fbi-director-job/2017/05/12/355c30f8-376b-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?utm_term=.216fe52ba3b0

    I don’t get it from Cornyn’s perspective.


    #ThanksObama

    • Manhatlibertarian May 12, 2017 at 9:57 pm

      Yeah I don’t get it either. Whoever gets the FBI Chief job will really be in the hot seat and will also face a contentious confirmation. Why he would contemplate giving up a relatively secure senate seat for this position I don’t know.

      • krazen1211 May 12, 2017 at 10:20 pm

        I think Cornyn is term limited as whip, but he should easily get another big position?

        Even merrick garland could in theory take a leave of absence from his judge position without resigning it I believe….senators can’t do that.

        • MaxwellsDemon May 12, 2017 at 11:29 pm

          He could just be bored, know that McConnell is never leaving, and being FBI Director is a pretty powerful position. He might not have wanted to stay in the Senate till he was 80 anyway.

          • HS May 13, 2017 at 10:13 am

            I think it is a combination of the two mentioned – McConnell isn’t leaving and he is term limited at Whip. FBI is very prestigious, especially for a former judge.

  • prsteve11 May 12, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    (1) I don’t want to give them any ideas! But I will say that I think just being obstructive and childish like they are now will hinder more than it helps them.

    (2) I think Republicans should try to work with President Trump and get some things done and also standing up to the threats of the obstructive Dems. One of the reasons House (and to a lesser degree Senate) Republicans are so unpopular is the perception that they’re a do-nothing Congress that caves to the Dems at the first sign of difficulty. One of the most powerful examples of how this works was when the Senate GOP unanimously shut down the Dems’ obstruction of (now) Justice Gorsuch. It was beautiful and we need more of that sort of resolve. Rather than running scared, stand strong and accomplish some meaningful things that will fire up the base to think that they elected Republicans to do something. In 2016, House Republicans got 94% of the Republican vote and we need that sort of unanimity to win in 2018 and beyond. It’s 18 months until the 2018 elections which is a political eternity so don’t let the Dems constantly put them on defense and get some things done..

    (3) I don’t know why but I’ve never been as interested in municipal elections. I know they’re important but I don’t really have an informed opinion on this question.


    SC-03, Conservative Republican

  • Manhatlibertarian May 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    According to the Montana SOS website, 348,000 absentee ballots have been sent out for the May 25 CD Special Election and 160,148 returned as of the night of May 11. For comparison purposes 507,831 ballots were cast absentee and in person in November 2016 for the House election according to the greenpapers. One would expect that the turnout for the special election will not be as high as the November 2016 election, so that would indicate a significant minority of voters have already cast ballots IMO. I don’t see any breakdown by party for ballots returned, unless I’m looking in the wrong place.

    There is also a story in ballotpedia, where Dem Quist claims that the tax liens by the state of Montana against him for $15,000 is due to health problems (which I guess he doesn’t have now if he is busy running for office). However, the recent newspaper story that was posted on this web site that he has converted a barn into 3 apartments for commercial rental and not reported it, would indicate that he is undervaluing the property for tax purposes, which of course he denies. If the article is true he can’t claim health problems for this one.

  • roguemapper May 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    (1) relentless mockery
    (2) slip him sedatives
    (3) no


    Dem NC-11

  • Mike1965 May 12, 2017 at 9:59 pm

    1) Obstruct everything. The past 8 years prove there is no political price to pay for obstructionism.

    2) Like it or not they are the Party of Trump now. Republicans will live or die with how successful the Trump Presidency is so they really have no choice but to fall in line behind him.

    3) ???


    #ThanksObama

  • Boehnerwasright May 12, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    1) Obstruct everything they can, while giving their red states senators room to vote for some republican bills. Use the same playbook on the AHCA as we used on Obamacare and blame every problem in the Healthcare system on the law and propose no solutions.

    Pray that Trump nominates someone like Cornyn(easy to paint him as a partisan and trump lackey) for FBI director who gets confirmed on a partyline vote. After that blow up the senate investigation and paint every investigation as partisan and trying to protect Trump. They don’t need proof of any wrongdoing by Trump (I doubt there is anything major a independant investigation would find) if they can convince enough people that every investigation by the FBI or Republicans can’t be trusted.

    2)Incumbent Republicans were able to outrun Trump in a lot of races. I doubt that is that easy in 2018. For better or worse Trump is the face of the republican party, so Republicans should have every incentive to make his Presidency a success.
    With a trifecta you need results to keep your majoraties. Improving AHCA and passing it and a well done tax reform/cuts is the minium to keep republican voters motivated.

  • Greyhound May 12, 2017 at 11:15 pm

    Corbyn claims that the UK has not fought a just war since 1945:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/britain-has-not-fought-just-war-since-1945-says-jeremy-corbyn/
    He calls the Falklands war a “Tory Plot”, and also basically promises to effectively walk out of NATO and Northern Ireland.


    R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

    • Son_of_the_South May 12, 2017 at 11:25 pm

      LOLOLOLOLOL! I know that he first won his seat in 1983, but there’s no way that he doesn’t remember that even as he was winning, his compatriates were dropping like flies. You can put some of it down to the Alliance, but it largely had to do with the popularity of the Falklands War! And pulling out of NATO? Is he trying to give wealthy London Remainers a reason to stick with the Tories? If I didn’t know better I’d say that the Thatcherites planted him as political bomb with a 35-year timer.


      24, R, TN-09
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 1:35 pm

      The whole point of NATO is that an attack on one member state is treated like an attack on all members and the member states come to the defense on the country attacked. Knowing this will happen deters a country like Russia from even contemplating attacking a country like say Poland on some pretext. If you say like Corbyn does that he might not use military force if a NATO member is attacked but might use economic or diplomatic measures, this actually makes an attack on a NATO member more likely because it creates uncertainty as to how NATO members will respond to a military attack. So his policies would make NATO membership by Britain virtually useless.

  • Izengabe May 12, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    Does anyone have the Murphy vs rubio numbers by congressional district in FL? Especially interested in Deutch and Frankels districts. Someone asked us for this and I figured someone here would have it.


    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • krazen1211 May 12, 2017 at 11:52 pm

      I went looking but our DKE friends only have the Presidential figures.

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dzkbgPlIKdp6e8dhWWD2lOsTr537orDNunLRBOTHx2o/edit?usp=sharing

      I suspect Rubio flat out won FL-07 and FL-26….probably not FL-12 though. Palm Beach County is really not that lopsided; overall it was 54-44 Murphy in the Senate race.

      Unfortunately FL-21 thru FL-23 are right in that null zone of 60-40 D……I suspect carving our a E. Clay Shaw district would be even easier nowadays.

      • rdelbov May 13, 2017 at 8:41 am

        I have thought a bit about SE Florida ala 2020. Here is the GOP problem. There needs to be about another 1/2 of a CD in SE Florida. Florida will likely get 2 new seats and roughly 1/4 of that needs to be in SE Florida. On the North end (Palm Beach County) can you draw a GOP 18th out of North Palm Beach? No but maybe you could if you did Martin County and North Dade? The current FL8 would then have to be St Lucie, Indian River and whatever you need in Brevard County.

        So IMO what you do with FL27 depends on what you try with FL18? My current thinking is that you don’t monkey too much with FL18 but sacrifice FL27.

    • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 12:08 am

      I know that someone has them. A few were posted in the IRL retirement thread. There might be a link there.


      24, R, TN-09
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 12:17 am

        Looks like the source was Matthew Isbell of MCI Maps.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

  • cinyc May 13, 2017 at 1:24 am

    All elections should be partisan, and jungle primaries should be banned. The last thing I want is a general election where my only choice is between 2 Democrats without even an option to write someone in. If that happened, I probably wouldn’t even bother to vote.

    • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 8:43 am

      The situation you described, where the only choice is between 2 Democrats, happens sometimes in California mainly because the first round of the top 2 happens in June rather than November. Relative turnout between the parties can be unusually skewed in June. This was especially the case in 2016 when Democrats still had a Presidential Primary going on in June. If the first round was on the date of the November general election like in Louisiana this problem would be much less likely to occur thanks to both sides having reasons to turnout.


      MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

    • indocon May 13, 2017 at 12:33 pm

      Some form of top 2 will be needed for us going forward in places like GA and AZ, where libertarians and other gadfly can take enough votes from our side.

    • Izengabe May 13, 2017 at 6:58 pm

      I agree that all Congressional and state elections should be partisan, but I see nothing wrong with top two jungle primaries for municipal elections. In fact jungle primaries for local municipal elections would be preferable as it is an easy way to prevent party machines from controlling the levers of power in government.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • indocon May 13, 2017 at 3:21 am

    An interesting data point on a topic that has been discussed frequently here, is Gen Z more conservative than Millennials.
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/05/septimius-severus-advice-to-his-sons.html

    Definitely looks like kids born in 1990s are a class apart in their liberalism, both on the right and the left side of the spectrum. Be interesting to look at other political attitudes split by the decade of your birth.

    • GorrestFump May 13, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      Isn’t Gen Z majority minority or close to that? Why would it be conservative leaning unless white Gen Z are voting Rs by 20-30 points?

      • Jon May 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm

        Forbes in 2015 states that Post-Millennials is 55% Non-Hispanic White, 24% Hispanic, 14% AA, 4%Asian, and 4% multiple categories or other.

        But last November was the first Presidential election any of that generation were old enough to vote.


        45, M, MO-02

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 4:23 pm

        No idea if this survey is legitimate, but that’s basically what they found. http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/

        Generation Z non-hispanic white males went 58-9-8 in the presidential election. As in 58 Trump, 9 Johnson, and 8 Clinton. NH Whites went overall 48 Trump, 11 Clinton, 9 Johnson.

        This of course, has some selection bias because I suspect the not-interested demographic is significantly more left-wing than the interested-demographic.


        I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Greyhound May 13, 2017 at 4:45 pm

          The alternative explanation is that the “Don’t Knows/Won’t Choose” breaks to the Ds. I doubt the Democrats are getting <50% of Black Gen Zs for example. I mean, overall they give Trump a 14-point lead, yet approve of Obama by 16. It might actually be that they just really despise Clinton specifically.


          R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 7:51 pm

            Agreed, but the country overall gave Obama +16 or so approval and still voted for Clinton only by 2. Even if we allocate 2/3rds of the Don’t Knows to the Democrats, which I think we should, then we’re still looking at a massive partisan gap among some of these groups. Democrats for example, would still be underwater among white men 3-1…and only beating the GOP 2-1 among non-white men.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • roguemapper May 13, 2017 at 5:18 pm

          It will be interesting to see how these figures hold up. From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I received 88 student reflections every week this past semester for my Modern World (1650-1950) humanities courses. These students are mostly from small NC towns and this course is required of all degree-seeking students so they come from a cross-section of disciplines. They were 82% white. In any case, the reflections required them to make connections between the weekly topic and current events. So, needless to mention, the Donald featured regularly in their comments. I would say that in January about 35% of them were favorable to the Donald. The comments became steadily more hostile to the Donald across the board from Jan to May. I suppose it’s possible that this was due to my corrupting influence, but I’m actually notable on campus for being difficult to pin down politically. If anything, my enduring hostility to postmodernism is the most common subtext of my lectures. Whatever the case, this is hardly a representative sample for Gen Z as a whole, but the shift in views of the Donald with this one subset of students was striking to put it mildly.


          Dem NC-11

          • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm

            How many of those changing their opinions are freshmen? If it’s not many, then it’s interesting. If it’s mostly freshmen, I’d dismiss it as settling into the college town bubble. Of course, there are bubbles internal to that as well (fraternity members tend to get more right-wing over their time in college in my experience), but I’d suspect that most college freshmen are being heavily influenced by their peer group and the town in general. They went from a small town where they mostly heard positive things about Trump to a college campus in a very liberal town where they overwhelmingly hear about the latest terrible things that Trump has done.


            24, R, TN-09
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

            • roguemapper May 13, 2017 at 5:39 pm

              None of them were freshmen. This is the third level of the four-course Humanities sequence with several prerequisites. The students are all juniors and seniors. And, for what it’s worth, I had a sizable contingent of frat guys in one of my sections that obviously registered for it so that they would be in the same class.

              The freshmen take the Ancient World so there probably isn’t much reference to the Donald in that one. lol You’re correct though about the drastic shift in first-semester freshman attitudes. I see that routinely in my history survey courses which are mostly freshmen and sophomores. I didn’t teach the surveys this semester.


              Dem NC-11

              • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm

                Well when I took my Ancient History course, the professor warned that some students came to view him like certain notorious Roman emperors (he actually was OK as long as you came to class, read the books and took good notes). I suspect that some people on the left probably would compare the Donald to certain notorious Roman emperors also.

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 11:31 pm

                  Come on, that’s too 2000’s left (omg Bush is Caligula!). The modern left would probably be spending their essays talking about how Elagabalus was the greatest Roman Emprx in history and zher legacy has been systematically slandered by “****ing WHITE MALES” – with editorials about how any professors/students suggesting otherwise are committing SYSTEMATIC RACIAL VIOLENCE against black&brown bodies and making the campus unsafe with their “truth”, which is a “construct of the Euro-West” created by “white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism” and thus need to be fired/expelled.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                  • roguemapper May 13, 2017 at 11:47 pm

                    Well he was an unparalleled slut even by Roman standards. Brown U really failed at giving you a safe space, didn’t it?


                    Dem NC-11

                  • Manhatlibertarian May 14, 2017 at 2:49 pm

                    Some on the SJW left probably think that Trump will “do a Caligula” and appoint a horse as the new FBI Director. But will it be a loyal horse?

          • Greyhound May 13, 2017 at 7:32 pm

            So in other words, the problem really is “Going to college”?


            R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 7:48 pm

              Maybe, but most college majors are fairly self-selecting. I was a double-major and I distinctly remember being one of the most left-wing students in one major (economics) and one of the most right-wing students in the other (history). Some majors are dramatically conservative (business, accounting) while others are very liberal (almost all humanities).


              I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 7:56 pm

                The thing about business and accounting majors (I was one) is that they still end up taking a fair amount of liberal arts courses just to get a Bachelors Degree. I remember having to take an English class from a radical who spent much of her lectures gushing with praise for Cuba and Fidel Castro while blaming all of its problems on US Imperialism.


                MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 8:13 pm

                  My impression of college is that the “out-of-major” classes you have to take have significantly dropped, especially as scores of schools have more or less abandoned the “Western canon”, though that obviously differs from school to school. Hell, I got a history major without really taking a single American history class (I took something about financial business history, so we spent more time on T. Boone Pickens than any president). Totally possible to graduate college today without knowing who Aristotle, Locke, or Frederick Douglas were (in a rare moment of partisan disagreement, I don’t think he “is being recognized more and more”).


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                  • jncca May 13, 2017 at 8:42 pm

                    At Berkeley I had to take I think 5 out-of-major classes to get my degree (2 of those were science classes since I was not a science major but all students need 2 science credits). None were specifically required classes, although there is an American Cultures (Diversity) requirement that provides some options but all are relatively similar.

                    Not sure how normal or abnormal that experience was but I’m a recent graduate.


                    24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

                    • Jon May 13, 2017 at 9:03 pm

                      There were a lot of non-major classes required, but several were actually imposed by the College of Arts & Science rather than the University of Memphis as a whole even then (I graduated in 94)


                      45, M, MO-02

                    • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 9:24 pm

                      I went to W&M, and it was very different. There were a lot of required credits (though I satisfied a lot of them with AP classes from HS). On the other hand, there no required ‘diversity courses’ (apart from a one-hour session during orientation that I was roundly criticized for mocking). Thank god we didn’t have those as requirements. I know that President Reveley, being a a good Republican, was categorically against them. He also routinely shielded Greek Life and other organizations from anti-partying raids by campus police. Right after his retirement was announced, raids increased. I feel really bad for those students who will now likely have to take their fun completely off campus and have to deal with more danger from motorists and Williamsburg City Police.


                      24, R, TN-09
                      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

                    • Greyhound May 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm

                      One of the things I like most about Grad school is that I’m done with that shit! I think the only Gen Ed class I took in my undergrad that I actually liked was Medieval Lit, mostly because Moliere is hilarious and I doubt I would have discovered him otherwise. Pretty much everything else was either redundant (Drugs are bad, mmmkay?), confusing as all hell (My “Values in the media” class that I stopped going to because I had no idea what it was supposed to be about or for), and the just plain boring (Philosophy).


                      R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

                    • Jon May 13, 2017 at 9:49 pm

                      I should also state that almost every general ed / A&S requirement was in the form of choose 1 class from a list rather than literally being only one class. (e.g. from A&S take two sophomore level foreign language classes from the same language)

                      The literally only being one or two classes were:

                      Computer Literacy (Computer Science majors exempt)
                      The freshman level English class on writing papers
                      A freshman level English class on literature (two options: The standard one and also one that was instead only from AA authors)
                      A freshman level class on Health.

                      Yes, CS turned the general natural science requirement of 2 courses in the same science into a two semesters of Physics.


                      45, M, MO-02

                    • californianintexas May 14, 2017 at 4:40 am

                      At UT Dallas in the early 2000s most of my first two semesters had no biology classes. In fact my freshman year I had no biology classes at all. I needed to take 2 semesters of chemistry before my first biology class. I also had to take 6 non-major courses: rhetoric, 2 history classes (pre-Civil War U.S. History and Family in U.S. History for me), 2 arts classes (Humanities and Art Appreciation), U.S. Government, and a social science elective. I chose Psychology because it seemed closest to natural sciences. I also had plenty of options for electives, which I used for statistics and music, continuing my longtime interests in numbers and playing musical instruments. (Funny that I took high school and college government courses in presidential election years, 2000 and 2004!)

                      After taking Spanish from 8th to 12th grade, I was surprised that I didn’t have to take any foreign language for my major. (If I went for a B.A. instead of B.S. I would have had to take a foreign language, and also would only be required to take algebra and applied calculus for my math requirements instead of 2 semesters of actual calculus.) I also didn’t have to take Economics or any finance courses. If I had gone for biochemistry instead of just plain biology I would have had to take 3 semesters of calculus like engineering majors. I wish I had gone for biochem or engineering. Biology was too easy.

                      I don’t recall any courses relating to diversity, women’s studies, etc. being offered back then. Not sure if it was because of the time, or because I went to a relatively conservative school. I remember a poll in the school paper showing Bush beating Kerry 47-42.


                      34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

            • Red Oaks May 13, 2017 at 9:19 pm

              Since we’re on the topic of college, I thought it would be interesting to post this study on the political leanings of law school professors based on political donations:
              http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/18/study-more-than-90-percent-of-top-50-law-schools-are-liberal/

              Law School professors are a very Democratic group.


              MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

              • rdelbov May 13, 2017 at 9:22 pm

                On the flip side nearly every conservative Law school professor is on the fast track to some Federal Court spot. The 10% who are republican and conservative are getting a real bang for the buck. Liberal law professors are a dime and a dozen and unless you know a Senator or went to school with Obama all you can look forward to is tenure.

      • Greyhound May 13, 2017 at 4:58 pm

        Well, it could also be that non-white Gen Z’s are nowhere near as Democratic as their elders, which is also a part of the survey VBKC posted below. Cutting the D margin with non-whites to 20 points does wonders for the GOP’s capability to win future elections.


        R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

        • indocon May 13, 2017 at 10:52 pm

          That I think will be the trend which all dumb political pundits will notice in few years. Issues like wall, immigration, and H1B will resonate significantly with a group of population that finds itself on the sideline while greedy corporate America keep touting need for cheep labor. If anything, I suspect non-white Gen Z might be more susceptible to this message as their parents will provide them much less inheritance than white Gen Z.

  • Left Coast Libertarian May 13, 2017 at 9:08 am

    The media has spent a lot of time writing about Republican districts Clinton won and how the Democrats will take them. So here’s finally an article about a district Trump won and the focus of the article is how Democrats can take even more of them. So Democrats can win Republican districts Clinton won and those Trump won. it’s a wonder the GOP ever wins a district. From these articles you wouldn’t know that Republicans have a big majority in the House.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/12/cheri-bustos-trump-territory-democrats-215126

    • rdelbov May 13, 2017 at 9:42 am

      The secret to her political career was and is the D map for congressional seats in IL. Did that fact even merit a mention?

      • Left Coast Libertarian May 13, 2017 at 1:26 pm

        It didn’t but what these guys miss is that she represents an area that votes Democratic down ballot. Look at the seats which switched parties in 2016. There were a bunch that switched due to redistricting, some districts that had been swing districts before, and Scott Garrett losing because he was Scott Garrett. Set aside Florida because it was redistricted. Outside of that state there was only one district that was Romney-Clinton or Obama-Trump that flipped. That was NV-3. It was Obama-Trump and actually flipped the other way to the Democrat.

        There were some Romney-Clinton or Obama-Trump districts where the challenger came close, but that’s the best they did. If Romney-Clinton districts were really as vulnerable as people think, I’d guess you would’ve seen a few flip in 2016. These congressmen would only be marginally vulnerable in a normal election. If there’s a wave, of course, they could be very vulnerable.

        That said, Democrats aren’t flipping traditionally Republican districts that Trump won by 13.

    • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm

      Bustos is good at projecting a centrist image but if you look at her voting record it is not that centrist. She is not a true Dem centrist like Costa, Cuellar, Peterson etc. when it comes to voting. But she cleverly uses words and projects an image to make her constituents think she is. I think Ossoff is trying to use this formula when he attacks government waste and speaks of the need for policies the encourage job creation. I suspect though that if he gets elected to Congress, he like Bustos, will vote an essentially liberal line. Maybe this phony image smoke and mirrors strategy will work for Dems if Repubs don’t push back and demonstrate that the “nice centrist words” that constituents hear is not grounded in reality.

  • krazen1211 May 13, 2017 at 10:37 am

    1. What they are doing is fine.

    2. We just played this out in the 2016 elections, didn’t we? Leftwing voters did not gave Kelly Ayotte much credit for backstabbing and moral preening, and she lost in the 2016 election. Ron Johnson easily won. So did Rubio. The equation shifts even further in that direction as now we are competing on red turf rather than purple turf.

    If folks want to maximize their electoral chances, they should do a good job with legislation and also enforce party loyalty and discipline to the extent that is possible.

    3. Partisan is fine.

  • BostonPatriot May 13, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    For #3 it entirely depends on the nature of the position. If it’s a political role like mayor or city councilor, I think it should be partisan. Letting candidates run under a party label gives voters a better chance of making an educated choice, and it also gives statewide parties more reason to play in local races, which are important for building a bench and gathering voter file data.

    But there’s no reason offices like clerk of court, register of probate, coroner, park supervisor, etc. should be partisan. There’s no political nature to these offices and I would much rather have, for example, the administrative side of the local court system be run by an extremely competent Bernie Sanders supporter than by a Republican hack using it as a stepping stone to higher office.

    This was actually an issue in my home county, where a few longtime competent D’s in nonpolitical roles were ousted by unqualified Republicans in 2014 because people were voting straight ticket. As good as it was to see Republicans solidifying themselves as the majority party in what had been a D county since forever, there was really no benefit to the voters from these incumbents losing.

  • fzw May 13, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    What if…Clinton had narrowly flipped the three states she lost by a point but all the Republican incumbents still hold on. Do Republicans get to 60 seats in 2018? I think almost certainly yes. The VA special, MO, IN, WV, ND, MT, OH, and WI are the most likely path to get there. Nelson would probably be in a tossup at best, and outside chances at MI, PA, and ME.


    Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
    R-leaning Indy.

    • GOPTarHeel May 13, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      Yeah, it’d be close to 60. If it weren’t for SCOTUS it might have been worth losing, but our court system is completely out of control. A center right court is worth a Trump presidency (not to mention the fact that the courts would start gaming the system for Democrats by declaring D-leaning maps and voting laws the only acceptable outcome.)


      R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

      • Ryan_in_SEPA May 13, 2017 at 1:52 pm

        The Republicans should just focus on filling every possible judicial vacancy and creating new judicial spots where needed to get a super majority on the courts.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

      • fzw May 13, 2017 at 2:00 pm

        Yeah, but I still think the liberals hyperventilating about the courts are really overreacting. A conservative judicial system still won’t overturn Roe or Obergefell (mark my words), and I think they fail to realize how terrible a Clinton Presidency would’ve been downballot. They’d have lost the Senate for at least a decade, Hillary would’ve probably been a one-termer (and there’s a chance that Ginsburg or Breyer wouldn’t have retired prior to 2018 anyway), redistricting would’ve probably been hopeless in the majority of states, and Republicans would probably be over 250 seats in the House. Really, from their perspective, Hillary losing is possibly one of the best things that could’ve happened, so long as Breyer and Ginsburg hold on. Unless they REALLY care about Citizens United or something like that.


        Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
        R-leaning Indy.

        • jncca May 13, 2017 at 2:39 pm

          I don’t really care about the courts at all and I actually think there’s an okay chance I’ll look back and be glad Trump won (assuming he loses in 2020 and that the House flips in 2018). If one of those things doesn’t happen, then it probably would have been better to have Clinton.


          24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • roguemapper May 13, 2017 at 4:52 pm

          Oh, I’ve embraced the Donald’s presidency for pretty much the reasons you describe, and have made a point of explaining to my liberal friends why we do not want the Donald to get impeached.


          Dem NC-11

        • Boehnerwasright May 13, 2017 at 9:34 pm

          I don’t think you will find many democrats worrying about Obergefell. Even if the Supreme Court overturned the ruling for some reasons, the public is so much in favor of gay marriage today, even most red states would pass laws or a referendum making it legal again. Utah and some other red states might hold out but for how long?

          Might even be a good tool for dems to mobilize their base.

      • Tekzilla May 13, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        I don’t get this line of thinking personally. If Republicans hold onto Congress and Trump gets re-elected I think there’s enough value there, but that’s a huge if. Otherwise Trump could deal severe damage to the Republican brand long term. Yes, yes I am well aware nothing is permanent but you are going to have people growing up Post-9/11 with only W and Trump as their leading Republicans to look to. We can agree/disagree on policy merits but IMO that’s not a good look for the party especially as the Reagan Democrats age out of the population.

        If Democrats take over the House and win back the Presidency in 2020 as I think is somewhat possible, I myself don’t think 4 years of Court picks is worth that, but I’ve been wrong plenty before.


        36/M/NY-01 (D)

        • jncca May 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

          I was just thinking that.

          In 2020, all voters 18-35 will have memories of (at most) 4 presidents: 2 popular Democrats and 2 unpopular Republicans. If you count HW Bush as an unpopular Republican (he’s generally considered a decent president retrospectively), then nobody under 40 at least will remember a popular Republican president.


          24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

          • Republican Michigander May 13, 2017 at 7:27 pm

            I don’t know if I’d consider Obama all that popular. In some areas he is, but he’s not exactly Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton (I’m a Clinton hater, but the fact that he won Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, and Kentucky twice says a lot).

            A lot of 18-35 folks have memories of 20 years of bad politicians period.


            MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

            • Mike1965 May 13, 2017 at 7:47 pm

              20 years from now Democrats will talk about Obama like Republicans now talk about Reagan. Clinton will be a footnote.


              #ThanksObama

              • GOPTarHeel May 13, 2017 at 7:55 pm

                Depends on if Obamacare survives I think. If it’s eviscerated Democrats won’t have much to show for his terms. If Republicans repeal it he’ll be a martyr but not a hero like Reagan is to the right.


                R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

                • Mike1965 May 13, 2017 at 8:21 pm

                  I think Obamacare in some form will survive and eventually grow. It may be 3 steps forward/ 2 steps back from a Democrats perspective in the near term but eventually I think we end up with a workable national healthcare system that Obama will be viewed as the father of. Add the fact that the economy was a mess when he entered office and doing better when he left plus his obvious historical significance and I think Obama will become a near mythic figure for Democrats like Reagan is for Republicans. The one difference is Obama may be in the public eye for the next 30/40 years, Reagan left public life shortly after his presidency ended.


                  #ThanksObama

              • pstchrisp May 14, 2017 at 9:46 am

                50 Years from now students will be protesting to remove Obama’s name from buildings because they “discovered” that he was a bigot against Same Sex Marriage for most of his in-office political career, and actually CAMPAIGNED AND WON the Presidency in 2008 while being VOCALLY AGAINST IT!!11!!.
                See: Woodrow Wilson/Princeton.

              • Indy1975a May 14, 2017 at 11:13 pm

                I disagree only because the D party base has moved past Obama on economics. Much of the party base is closer to Sanders than Obama; and I expect that the next D President will effectively be Sanders-lite. There is already a sense that Obama was too pro-corporate and pro-Wall Street in office from the D base.

                Regardless of what happens to health care, I suspect that Obama is viewed by the D base as a successful Nixon (with no Watergate or other dirty tricks) would have been viewed by the Rs. Nixon w/o Watergate would have been a pretty decent President, but not a transformational one.


                Independent, R until November 2016. Proud "Globalist Cuck"!

            • krazen1211 May 13, 2017 at 8:08 pm

              The whole line of discussion is ridiculous. Obama’s median approval rating for his term was less than Nixon and W in Gallup polls….which is kind of how you lose 1000 state legislative seats over 8 years and end up at 1920s level in the House.

              If it was worth trading a Presidency for some legislative seats the Dems would have made that trade 8 years ago. Of course, their own behavior reveals their preferences.

              Incumbent Presidents are 15-5 in elections since 1900. We would be swimming uphill even against someone as dumb as Hillary Clinton. Now we have the advantage.

              • rdelbov May 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm

                yup Obama will likely be viewed as a Carter type President except he got a second term.

                • krazen1211 May 13, 2017 at 10:01 pm

                  Nah I am not so sure. Unlike W, Clinton, Bush Sr, etc……Obama never lost his own partisan voters over the full 8 years and thus bottomed out in the 37% or so range. That will help him. Screwing his party in downballot races won’t matter much in 20 years.

                • Tekzilla May 14, 2017 at 8:43 am

                  Virtually zero chance of this. Not sure how people can even think this to be honest, considering his approvals as he left office.


                  36/M/NY-01 (D)

                  • indocon May 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm

                    Presidents are remembered by major events and accomplishments in their term. For Carter, major policy changes like deregulating airlines and 401ks (yes it was him who signed on them as a way to protect pensions) could have been construed very positively today, but they get overshadowed by his appearance of ineptness in face of events like fall of Shah and resulting gas lines, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the malaise speech, and on and on. The question for Obama’s legacy is what events and accomplishments will define him? Obamacare is already done, at least in name as Republicans will not own health care for good or bad. For all the talk of coming single-payer system, our future healthcare system will look a lot like 401k’s and SS, a basic universal system like SS for healthcare which could be Medicaid for all, existing under a pay what you can model. In a way Obamacare will do for healthcare what Carter’s legislation in 1978 did for pensions. The moronic and idiotic congressional Republicans can accelerate this transition, if they have any brains to think about it.

                    Now the one legacy Obama could be held accountable for if the groups on the right keep beating the drums on it is breaking the 25 year trend of declining crime rates, starting literally with him embracing ‘Hand Up Don’t Shoot” crap. We now have had three years of double-digit increase in crimes, mostly in high concentration black cities, but we know well that all things that start in the hood never stay there, if crime is significantly higher 5-10 years down the road, Obama could be associated with that.

                  • HS May 14, 2017 at 3:51 pm

                    The approvals of the President are totally immaterial.

                    Obama and Clinton will be venerated by historians because most historians are left wing Democrats who want to promote their presidencies. And Obama is the first black President.

        • GOPTarHeel May 13, 2017 at 7:50 pm

          Liberals just don’t understand the fear most of us on the right have of a liberal Supreme Court, probably because a center-right one generally doesn’t threaten most left-wing projects on a regular basis. Without an at least centrist court, control of the lower levels of government is worthless. See, e.g. the Fourth Circuit ‘s attitude towards North Carolina.


          R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 13, 2017 at 8:01 pm

            To everyone right-of-center, the Supreme Court is pretty much an existential threat to democracy. Almost no country has a Supreme Court as deeply politicized as the USA, which is a problem that the USA has had to deal with for a very long time (starting from Dred Scott). America is really a global outlier on this point and the only other countries that come close usually have severe problems in their history or current governance (South Africa, Iran, Venezuela). The day the GOP gives up on the court is the day I switch parties.

            As an aside, one demonstration of the utter irredeemable worthlessness of the entire GOP establishment is that I know someone who was a fairly generous donor to the Jeb campaign, who then abandoned the entire GOP primary after meeting Jeb Bush at a fundraiser dinner, where Jeb would not absolutely commit to nominating a conservative justice – and this was obviously long before Scalia’s death!


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • GOPTarHeel May 13, 2017 at 7:54 pm

          Having a “popular” President Obama led to the Democrats being at their lowest level of political power since 1928. Clinton similarly presided over the collapse of the Democratic South and loss of the permanent House majority. Parties bounce back even after having unpopular leaders because there’s no where else for voters to go but the opposition to express displeasure with the ruling party.


          R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

          • jncca May 13, 2017 at 8:44 pm

            I’ve always mocked the permanent majority people so I’m with you there. I just find it an interesting fact and unique in US history, I think, to go over 30 years (1993 to 2025, assuming Trump never becomes popular which I’d say is likely but far from certain) with no popular president from one of the two parties.


            24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

            • GOPTarHeel May 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm

              As Krazen pointed out though, Obama wasn’t particularly popular either. More so than Trump obviously but his numbers were underwater until a Trump won the nomination.


              R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

              • krazen1211 May 14, 2017 at 9:49 pm

                Bush Sr. was actually fairly popular at the end of term if you want to cherry pick end of term snapshotting. He got beat by a superior political talent but he didn’t screw his party in the process. And if you want to cherry pick end of term……who your successor is probably should factor in.

                But, if you look at cook figures…..Clinton didn’t make it so difficult for the Dems to win the House of Representatives, or the Senate for that matter, by anchoring his party with a very geographically inefficient distribution.

                http://cookpolitical.com/file/Cook_Political_Report_Partisan_Voter_Index_.pdf

                The net partisan gap of seats in 1998 was 25 seats for Rs………it’s 27 seats now. Not much different. The median seat has moved a couple points right. But polarization makes it much harder to win enough of the 72 middle seats in 2018 than enough of the 164 seats in 1998. Shrug.

            • HS May 14, 2017 at 3:59 pm

              It really is similar to the period post-Civil War when the 2 parties were pretty much dead even and each election was a nail biter.

              Reagan, LBJ, and Nixon all won huge margins when the US was in a different situation, when the population had more independent or soft party voters. That is why these Presidents could win by such large margins.

              I am very interested in how the next few elections go, since the last realignment was in the 90s, and we are due a new one in the 20s (realignments tend to occur every 30 years or so).

              • Son_of_the_South May 14, 2017 at 4:12 pm

                Yeah, I’ve been making that comparison for a while now. It’s what I tell people when they despair that the country is irrevocably divided.


                24, R, TN-09
                Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

                • segmentation_fault May 14, 2017 at 5:34 pm

                  I think jncca said that we’re heading into the 7th party system, which is essentially globalism vs nationalism, urban vs rural, white vs non-white, educated vs uneducated. The trends we have begun to see with Trump vs. Clinton.

                  The 8th party system, which will come when we are post-racial, I think will be divided among class and at that point we will probably have a true far left socialist movement again.

                  • TexasR May 14, 2017 at 7:08 pm

                    A liberal with an R after his name vs a liberal with a D after her name being symbolic of the new party system is, in fact, symbolic of everything that is wrong with America in 2017!


                    Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
                    Be careful what you wish for

                  • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 14, 2017 at 8:55 pm

                    Education and race intersect in interesting ways. College educated minorities, even in 2016, skewed more Republican than those with a HS degree.

                    Though that might be an issue of collinearity, because the second generation is just naturally more likely to get a college degree.


                    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

  • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    New York by and large does not use non partisan elections for cities of any size. The six most populous cities in New York, NYC, Yonkers,Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany now all have Dem mayors. In the not that distant past some of these cities had Republican mayors, but demographic changes make that less likely now. However, towns on Long Island are often quite large and often have GOP Supervisors. Three towns that have GOP Supervisors (equivalent of a mayor) that come to mind are Hempstead (2010 pop about 760,000). Islip (2010 pop about 320,000) and Oyster Bay (2010 population about 290,000) and I think there are others. Since political party organizations are so entrenched in NY I don’t think non partisan elections would change much; party organizations would still back a certain candidate and it would be widely known who that candidate is even if a party designation did not appear on the ballot.

    • Izengabe May 13, 2017 at 7:03 pm

      I disagree. In NY using a top two jungle primary system for municipal elections would take the power of choosing elected officials out of the hands of party bosses and unions and would be the biggest goo-goo reform NY could do. If NYC had a jungle primary there is no way Mayor deBlasio gets elected Mayor.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    UK-election: The Corbynistas are getting desperate. One of them, a columnist for The Independent, is openly trying to stoke anger among the young against the old to get them to turn out for Corbyn and Co.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/young-people-general-election-register-vote-jeremy-corbyn-labour-tories-more-power-than-you-think-a7731791.html


    24, R, TN-09
    Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • cer May 13, 2017 at 6:11 pm

      I could easily see May with a Tory majority in the 380-400 seats range.

      Corbyn is as thick as Maxine Waters is in our country.


      Conservative first, Republican second!

      • jncca May 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

        Neither Corbyn nor Waters are thick, exactly. They are extremist. There is a difference.


        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • cer May 13, 2017 at 6:49 pm

          After listening to the many idiotic things that both Corbyn and Waters have said over the years, they are both as thick as a brick.

          By the way, YES, they are also both extremist.


          Conservative first, Republican second!

          • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 6:50 pm

            Well, they’re idiotic to you because you disagree with their ideology. That’s different than them actually being idiots.


            24, R, TN-09
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 6:49 pm

          Well, yeah. Corbyn is no idiot. Waters is no dummy, either. His problem is that he’s somewhat incompetent at being a leader and pretty extreme ideologically. Her problem is that she’s somewhat racist and arguably a slumlord.


          24, R, TN-09
          Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

          • cer May 13, 2017 at 6:57 pm

            I truly do think they are both idiots, well beyond me just disagreeing with them. Corbyn is being mocked a lot for a reason. There seems to be a toned deafness with some of the things that he is saying these days.

            A true intellect, would be smart enough to be more tactful in a campaign like this.


            Conservative first, Republican second!

            • jncca May 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm

              Political skill isn’t the same as intellect. Warren Harding is one example of that. He wasn’t bright but he knew how to get himself president.


              24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

            • Tekzilla May 14, 2017 at 8:46 am

              I’ll tread lightly here, but I’m curious, if you think Maxine Waters is an idiot what do you think of Steve King or Louie Gohmert? Do you believe only Liberal politicians are idiots?


              36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Tekzilla May 13, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    1. Similar to the Republicans in 2010-2016, the best option seems to be total and complete obstruction. I would advise to compromise when Trump does truly go left (Budget deal) and/or to the Center or when he nominates good people like Mattis/Shulkin etc. though.

    2. The Rubio/McCain approach seems to work ok. Feign soft opposition when something major happens but ultimately stick with the party.

    3. Like someone said up above, every election we should know who is what. The more info the better.


    36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • segmentation_fault May 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    After decades of being a backbencher in Congress, Richard Burr is finally in the spotlight.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/us/politics/richard-burr-trump-investigating-russia.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

    • cer May 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm

      IMHO for all the wrong reasons. Not my favorite GOP Senator.


      Conservative first, Republican second!

      • segmentation_fault May 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

        I don’t have a huge problem with him. He’s one of the few NC Republicans not always talking about social issues. He’s very low key. But he doesn’t have a very large presence in NC. Only spent like three weeks campaigning last cycle.

        • Manhatlibertarian May 13, 2017 at 9:47 pm

          I like Burr. He is conservative without being a “falling off the end of the earth I’m so far to the right” type of conservative we sometimes see in NC. True he is not very dynamic and tends to be low key but he did win re-election, so who cares.

    • w920us May 13, 2017 at 10:05 pm

      Wake Forest Alum! And played on the football team. I’m happy with him.

      We had to recover from Charlie Crist being the quarterback on the football team.


      R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
      #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

  • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    UK-Election: The Midlands target list is finally done!

    http://rrhelections.com/index.php/2017/05/13/uk-target-seats-part-4-the-midlands/


    24, R, TN-09
    Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • cer May 13, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      SOTS, great job on your UK-election breakdown as always.


      Conservative first, Republican second!

      • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 7:42 pm

        Thanks, man.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • cer May 13, 2017 at 8:32 pm

          By the way, how is Sky News general election night coverage? I know you can stream it live via Youtube.


          Conservative first, Republican second!

          • Son_of_the_South May 13, 2017 at 8:57 pm

            It’s ok, but the BBC’s is much better. It’s actually not even a contest. When David Dimbleby leaves after this election, the gap should narrow. Still, though, the BBC’s will probably be somewhat better.


            24, R, TN-09
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

            • cer May 14, 2017 at 9:23 am

              I love the charts/graphics that they use at the BBC.


              Conservative first, Republican second!

  • segmentation_fault May 13, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    Jason Chaffetz is rumored to be going to Fox News (getting his own show?), will not serve full term.

  • shamlet May 13, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    PA-Gov/Sen: State Rep. Dave Reed (R) is out. http://www.politicspa.com/reed-rules-out-governor-and-senate-runs-in-2018/83070/


    R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

  • mudphud May 13, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    (1) I think the Dems’ current strategy is the right one. Seek amazing deals on must-pass bills that can’t possibly pass with only Republican support, like the recent budget bill, but otherwise vote against everything else. In the midst of particularly contentious moments, do whetever possible to shut down debate entirely. Periodically remind the grassroots that they have a party to support and donate to.

    (2) I also think most Republicans are playing this correctly. There’s nothing to be gained by attacking Trump. The more they can make any criticism of Trump seem like a boring partisan disagreement, the better 2018 will turn out for them. On the margins, it would also help if the more conservative members had lower standards for legislation, so that Trump could claim credit for accomplishments without passing anything really unpopular. Keep Trump feeling powerful to reduce his meltdowns.

    (3) Yes. In the current environment, party identification says a lot about one’s values and priorities, even at the local level. For any elected position that influences allocation of public money, voters should know the candidates’ political affiliation.

  • MosheM May 13, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    .@ElectionsBC confirms it’s changed prelim vote count in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain after “transcription error.” Lib lead goes from 170 to 268


    29, M, R, NY-10

    • MosheM May 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm

      179,000 absentees to be counted in the entire province.


      29, M, R, NY-10

      • Ryan_in_SEPA May 13, 2017 at 11:27 pm

        At this point we don’t know who won the most seats, but the Liberals will get the first crack at forming a government.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

  • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 12:10 am

    Reminder that twitter-famous political consultants are sometimes garbage.

    https://twitter.com/therickwilson/status/863577970761453569


    R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

    • indocon May 14, 2017 at 12:43 am

      wow, to think some mainstream republican candidates had him as his chief strategist. This is Alex Jones territory.

      • cer May 14, 2017 at 9:34 am

        Another good reason why I don’t follow Rick Wilson on twitter. Garbage in and garbage out.


        Conservative first, Republican second!

  • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 2:53 am

    Today is the most important election day prior to the Federal Election in September. The SPD must defend their plurality in the most populous state, while the CDU wants to go three for three in state election victories. Plus it would be only the second time that the CDU actually gain a PMship since Merkel became Chancellor in 2005.

    All the last polls put the CDU ahead by 1 point, so this could be an extremely close race. Personally, I think the SPD will prevail. The two losses this year and the fear of being written off this early (it’s called a small Federal Election) will drive SPD voters home and to the polls.

    The CDU did a much better Job at generating turnout this year and NRW is a horribly mismanaged state, so there is hope.

    • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 8:14 am

      Yup this is a big deal. Polling indicates a big improvement for FDP as well. Some last minute switches from FDP to CDU could boost them?

      The CDU/FDP apparently has a 3 to 6 point lead over the SDP/Green Combo. That could be critical as well. At least this point the head to head numbers seem most critical but the overall numbers seem quite fascinating to me as well.

      • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 11:50 am

        I hope not. This is heading towards a Grand Coalition and I want to finish the CDU as far ahead of the FDP as possible. I doubt it, but 3 for 3 would be a very important boost to Merkel and more importantly a serious blow to the SPD and her left-lef wing coalition aspirations.

  • gladstone May 14, 2017 at 7:48 am

    One thing to consider about Jeremy Corbyn. All things considered he is actually running a fairly decent campaign. The leaked manifesto over the last week has managed to get everyone talking about economic issues and the NHS, and while he trails on the former, polling shows that he is only less trusted 47% to 34% which is a lesser margin than that by which Labour trails. By contrast, the NHS is the weakest issue for the government, not least because the recent hacks highlighted how governments of both parties have raided the funds intended for equipment upgrades in order to maintain day to day operating budgets. In the meantime, no one has been talking about Brexit since the local elections. May’s focus on fox hunting, as much as my co-workers may love it, was probably unhelpful.

    That said, both May and Corbyn may well be aiming for the same outcome. For all the talk of smashing Labour, the best outcome for May is a large Tory majority and Corbyn remaining as leader, meaning a 48-34-8 result is preferable to a 45-27-16 one. Not only does it likely still get the Tories more seats(since the Liberal Democrats not only fail to make gains but probably lose 2-4 seats to the Tories), but by allowing Corbyn to claim he received the highest percentage of the vote since Blair in 2005(35%) in the worst possible circumstances(party divided, open sabotage, Brexit) it allows him to blame his centrist foes for the defeat. Therefore both May and Corbyn seem to be working to create a two-horse race. This cooperation began with the election call, and continued with the decision of both leaders to boycott the debates, effectively locking all other parties out of the campaign. May, by taking actions that do little to help the Tories but activitate the most tribal instincts among Labour voters(Fox Hunting) limits defections to the Liberal Democrats and makes the middle class Blairites look collaborationist, while Corbyn, by focusing on hard leftist domestic issues, makes the Liberal Democrats look like they have nothing to offer.

    This weekend we saw a host of polls, all of which had both parties gaining.

    Yougov was the most extreme with CON: 49% (+3) LAB: 31% (+1) LDEM: 9% (-2) UKIP: 3% (-2) but others followed that basic model, albeit with UKIP probably too high. ORB has CON 46%(nc), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 7%(-1). OPINIUM CON 47%(+1), LAB 32%(+2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 5%(-2), GRN 2%(nc). COMRES CON 48%(-2), LAB 30%(+5), LDEM 10%(-2), UKIP 5%(-2)(on several weeks ago.)

    All in all, for the mockery Corbyn is getting, he, McDonnell, and Milne are running a campaign that is fairly self-aware of what its objectives are, and is competently pursuing them. Or as competently as the tools available allow. That is a far cry from say the Democrats in the US who seem wholly clueless about their actual position, or even the Liberal Democrats or Blairites in the UK.

    • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 10:26 am

      Could it also be that Crosby is holding back until the last few weeks to really hammer Corbyn? I agree that May had been running a fairly uninspired campaign.

      If you’re correct about them having a strategy to keep Corbynite Labour alive, they’re playing with fire. Her government will stumble and become unpopular at some point and will lose an election within 15 years. Do they want to hand the country over to a nutjob like McDonnell or a respectable opponent like Yvette Cooper?


      R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

      • gladstone May 14, 2017 at 11:15 am

        So the Conservatives vie themselves as the natural party of government. If you look at recent history, they were in office from 1922-1923, 1924-29 1931-45 1951-64, and then only lost by the narrowest margins after massively screwing up the leadership succession. The 1974 loss was blamed on Heath and again was very narrow, and that leaves the Blair interlude. The Conservatives believe there is nothing stopping them from being in office until 2027, or then only being out for 4-6 years.

        • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 11:50 am

          I think that’s short sighted. They were out of power for 13 years after all, and they had to go into coalition after Brown presided over the financial crisis. Cameron blew a huge lead that year. In 2015 they won by squeezing the life out of the LibDems and running an anti-SNP campaign that risked the union. In 2017 they’re repeating that trick by smothering UKIP. By 2022 it looks like British politics will return to a two-party system, meaning the government’s mistakes will benefit a dangerous left wing Labour and not UKIP or another protest party.

          Maybe having Jim Messina aboard the campaign is a coincidence, but I detect a whiff of Hillary-esque gaming the composition of the future opposition instead of going for a huge win by playing to the center.


          R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 14, 2017 at 10:09 pm

            I’ve long argued that Corbyn will do better than expected, and I don’t think it’s the end of the world if he won one day. He wouldn’t last long, Labour would be left in shambles, and the beauty of a parliamentary system is that you can undo anything that was horribly stupid after you win the next election. In contrast, a Clinton 2016 victory could have led to the Supreme Court systematically murdering American democracy for a century.

            Alternatively, the UK more or less has ended all of the Clement Atlee-era nationalizations, while it’s pretty much impossible to tinker with our out-of-date World War 2 era constructs (like employer-based healthcare).


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Son_of_the_South May 14, 2017 at 11:13 am

      I hadn’t thought of it with the intentions of the leaders in mind, but the numbers seemed to be pointing that way to me as of yesterday. May needs to be careful, though. Talking about things like fox hunting could also get some ex-Labour Kippers to go home to them instead of the Tories.


      24, R, TN-09
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • krazen1211 May 14, 2017 at 12:38 pm

      Reading this I figured that ‘fox hunting’ was a metaphor for something else…..but it seems to be literally about hunting foxes? I won’t use the world wedge issue….but it seems odd. What’s the background on this?

      Just searching for some op-eds, I found this…probably written by their equivalent of the #resistance…

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-fox-hunting-free-vote-parliament-eu-europe-deal-labour-tories-shameful-a7729861.html

      I thought that the UK Parliament already passed a vote to start Brexit article 50? My take on this is that there probably isn’t majority support for Brexit by itself in a vacuum…..probably not unlike the theory that there isn’t majority support for President Trump in a vacuum….but they are boxed in by the voters. What is the point of a final vote if they cannot realistically vote no?

      As an aside, does the PM control the legislative calendar and literally determine what is voted on? Or is this fox hunting thing more of a party platform thing?

      • ukconservative May 14, 2017 at 1:17 pm

        Fox hunting is simply hunting foxes. Country people ride horses, blow horns and chase foxes, occasionally catching them. It is basically a remnant of class war, and while officially none partisan, tories mainly support it, and labour almost all oppose it, with the snp opposed as english people do it. Labour made it technically illegal about 15 years ago, with Blair bringing it up to keep the left onside over everything else he did. With a free vote, it will pass if the tories have a big enough majority. Most voters aren’t really very interested. Ironically, far more people now do it since it was made illegal, as part of countryside solidarity, and as long as they do not deliberately catch a fox is it still OK.
        As regards the legislative timetable, the PM effectively controls it and decides what parliament votes on. It is tricky with a small majority as backbenchers can be awkward, hence the EU referendum, which Cameron was forced to offer, but with a big majority, the PM controls pretty much everything.

        • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 3:46 pm

          From what I’ve read, allowing a free vote on fox hunting is also a huge motivating factor for organized groups of young farmers and rural English to campaign for Conservatives, so putting that in the manifesto will attract some ground troops for the doorsteps.


          R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

  • RogueBeaver May 14, 2017 at 10:10 am

    IL-GOV: Dem establishment uniting behind Pritzker, trying to push Kennedy out. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/chris-kennedy-illinois-governor-bid-238364


    QC/Blue Tory/M

  • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    NRW – 1st Early Projection:
    SPD: 30,5
    CDU: 34,5
    FDP: 12,0
    Greens: 6,0
    AfD: 7,5
    Linke: 5,0

    It’s important that the Linke stays out. If they do, it could mean that CDU and FDP could form a coalition. If they do, it might become a Grand Coalition.

    !!!!

    SPD lost over 8 points, CDU gained over 8 points. Early projection, it might go down, but still a very hefty result.

    In terms of coalition preferences “none of the above” got 50%. 😛

    • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 12:14 pm

      Isn’t a Jamaica coalition with the Greens more likely than a grand coalition?


      R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

      • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:26 pm

        Not really, no. Greens don’t want that.

        • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 12:28 pm

          Oh. Was that last week’s election then?


          R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

          • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm

            Yeah, Schleswig-Holstein will get a Jamaica Coalition. NRW will get a Grand Coalition, because it does look like the Linke will meet the 5% threshold. Unfortunately!

    • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 12:21 pm

      Yuge CDU win!!!

    • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      Hannelore Kraft, the current Prime Minister, just announced that she’ll step down from her Chairmanship and will also vacate her post as a Vice Chair of the Federal SPD.

    • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm

      Martin Schulz speaking just now, visibly shaken. I’m celebrating this.

    • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      Just to put this in perspective: NRW is not just any other state. It’s the heartland of the SPD and nothing else. The SPD has reigned in NRW since the creation in the late 40s except for a handful of years.
      The last time the SPD lost NRW it was in 2005 and Merkel subsequently won the chancellorship.

      • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 12:52 pm

        This is huge win for the CDU! I assume the vote count will be pretty quick?

        • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 1:14 pm

          Should be done by midnight, so five hours.
          But the really important question is whether the Linke will meet the 5% threshold. I hope not, but I’m skeptical.

    • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 1:27 pm

      The Linke just fell down to 4,9% in the newest count. This is gonna be a long night for the Linke and for both the CDU and the FDP, because only if the Linke stays out, we might get a CDU-FPD coalition.

      • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 1:36 pm

        crossing my fingers!

        • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 1:45 pm

          Thanks, I have to leave for work in few minutes, but I’Ll try to keep you updated. And I need to see how this turns out in the end.

          • TheWizardOf144 May 14, 2017 at 2:41 pm

            GerGOP,

            Told ya 😉

            • The Emperor May 14, 2017 at 2:49 pm

              Maybe we’ll see a CDU/FDP government back in power after September. Probably the best move for Germany


              male/21/R/TX-22, CA-52/originally CA-45, KS-03
              Rubio Republican

            • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm

              Remind me to play the Lottery with you.

    • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      It’s holding steady with Linke at 4,9%
      That’s great.
      Not so great is the fact that the CDU man Laschet will propably lose his race to get a direct mandate which could preclude hom from actually being elected PM. there is a Trick which the CDU will propably have to use…

      • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 4:10 pm

        That is all very confusing about Laschet!!

        wonderful news!!!

      • The Emperor May 14, 2017 at 4:22 pm

        A few months ago Schultz was looking good to be Chancellor. What happened to cause the SPD to plummet?


        male/21/R/TX-22, CA-52/originally CA-45, KS-03
        Rubio Republican

        • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 5:28 pm

          Ill have to give my assumption tomorrow. Typing in my Phone in englisch is cancer.
          Linke still at 4,9, shouldnt be much longer.

        • jncca May 14, 2017 at 10:36 pm

          Seems to me he got a nomination bump and that has died down, leaving the SPD stronger than they were a year ago but not strong enough to beat Merkel.


          24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

    • w920us May 14, 2017 at 6:55 pm

      Is this potentially (unlike France) an instance where polling is off slightly in favor of the more liberal parties like we saw in UK and the US? Most of the polling had it closer or with the Social Democrats leading.


      R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
      #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

      • TheWizardOf144 May 14, 2017 at 8:13 pm

        Merkel and the CDU regularly outperform their polls. AfD did here as well.

  • RogueBeaver May 14, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    Callista Gingrich named Ambassador to the Holy See. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/14/politics/callista-gingrich-vatican-ambassador/index.html


    QC/Blue Tory/M

  • Manhatlibertarian May 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Well looks like the Prize Patrol is at it again in the NY State Senate. The media has found that payroll listings that go from the State Senate to the State Comptroller improperly listed seven state senators for stipends as committee chairs when in fact they are vice chairs not committee chairs. There is no provision for stipends for vice chairs. Three are IDC faction Dems, who are aligned with the GOP in the State Senate: Valesky, Peralta and Savino. Four are Repubs: O’Mara, Gallivan, Richie and Helming. Not clear who authorized these payments; GOP State Senate Majority Leader Flanagan has no comment except to say everything authorized in this matter was done legally. There is a vague provision allowing for special stipends but the payroll records don’t reference this and clearly identify the state senators as committee chairs when in fact that is not the case. Stipends are valued prizes in the State Senate, as the base salary is only $79,500, and mainstream Dems have alleged that one reason state senators join the IDC Dem faction is the promise of stipends, which the GOP controlled State Senate can get for them. Don’t know if this story will have legs and could lead to possible criminal charges but it is certainly at a minimum not good publicity for the state senators involved.

    http://myinforms.com/en-us/a/380379874-republican-state-senators-also-got-possibly-illegal-stipends-like-breakaway-democrats/

  • cer May 14, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    Looks like Rep. Waters got a bit of her own impeachment medicine thrown right back at her.

    http://www.theblaze.com/?p=1312020

    I say, well deserved! Even though, she can’t be impeached like the POTUS can be.


    Conservative first, Republican second!

  • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    1) What they’re doing, minus the insane Russia stuff.

    2) Pass major legislation and look for wedge issues that split the Democratic base from average voters. We haven’t made Democrats take any hard votes this year!

    3) I’m undecided about partisan vs. non-partisan for city elections. North Carolina Republicans used to over-perform (and still do somewhat) in Charlotte, our only city with partisan elections, but we still lose and only have 2 council seats. We have one seat and zero seats in ‘non-partisan’ Greensboro and Raleigh. On the other hand Republicans hold the mayorships in Fayetteville and Kinston which would likely be Democratic in a partisan system.

    My ideal system is probably partisan elections for mayor but I’d like to utilize the single-transferable vote system for city councils to ensure minority party and minority ethnicity representation.


    R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

  • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Armin Laschet won a direct mandate by the skin of his teeth. That was extremely Important because it would have precluded him from becoming PM.

    No New projections, but the linke is still below 5%…

    • The Emperor May 14, 2017 at 7:20 pm

      What’s a direct mandate?


      male/21/R/TX-22, CA-52/originally CA-45, KS-03
      Rubio Republican

      • GOPTarHeel May 14, 2017 at 7:36 pm

        Correct me if I’m wrong GerGOP but doesn’t it mean being elected from a constituency and not a party list?


        R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

        • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 7:56 pm

          I think that is correct. The candidate who receives the most votes in a particular district is elected. Each voter in Germany casts two votes-one for the candidate in that district and the other for the party from which party list candidates are chosen.

          I don’t pretend to know how the details but who is elected and how many total members are chosen is always fuzzy. 1st you throw out votes to minor parties that don’t get to the 5% threshold. So the base might be 90%? FDP gets 12% of the 90% vote so it it entitled to 13.33% of seats or 13/100. If the FDP does not win any electoral districts then its 13 members are chosen from the list. I suspect the two top parties more or less equally divide out the 1st vote seats while the minor parties get candidates elected from a list. The total number of seats might edge up or down depending how statistically things get flunky. For instance if one party wins a lot of districts by a narrow margin then the other major party needs more seats added to fill out its number.

          • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 8:05 pm

            Couldnt have said it better myself.

            NRW is the only state in which a PM must win a direct mandate. That could have made it dicey for Laschet.

            Still no preliminary call, so we still have to deal with the projection and we wont get official Results until tomorrow noon. It’s 2am at my place right now.

            One thing is clear, though: this was a big night for the CDU with a Candidate who ran behind as many as 14 points two months ago.

  • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 8:19 pm

    Still no preliminary result, but it seems like even the Linke staying out wont cut it… The CDU is steadily going down.
    CDU FDP now stand at 100 with 101 needed. Gosh, darn it.

    • Manhatlibertarian May 14, 2017 at 9:07 pm

      One seat short. Arghhhh…..

    • PeterM May 14, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      I may be missing something but according to the ZDF there are 199 seats meaning 100 would be the majority??


      Goldwater/Reagan Conservative, no longer a Republican

      • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 9:35 pm

        I saw a 200 Number. But we wont know the exact number until the Results are certified. Stupid System.

        • rdelbov May 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm

          The math changes but the % is 45.4 CDU/FDP-others 45.0 but the seat count appears to be 72CDU-28 FDP- then 14 Green/16 AfD/70SDP
          The Math looks crazy and factions are changing==

          As noted it could 100-100 but it also could be 100-99

          Or if it shifts just a bit 101 to 99?

        • PeterM May 15, 2017 at 1:05 am

          Thanks; a very odd system indeed!


          Goldwater/Reagan Conservative, no longer a Republican

          • GerGOP May 15, 2017 at 1:34 am

            It’s complete bs and this kind of system has led to the Bundestag getting bloated after every election. We’re possibly looking at a 700+ parliament come September. Nuts!

            • The Emperor May 15, 2017 at 2:09 am

              I don’t get why they don’t go to a completely FPTP system. We’d probably see the CDU/CSU merge with the FDP and win absolute majorities


              male/21/R/TX-22, CA-52/originally CA-45, KS-03
              Rubio Republican

  • Manhatlibertarian May 14, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    Three of the more important Montana newspapers, the Independent Record (Helena), the Billings Gazette and the Missoulian (Missoula) endorsed Gianforte this weekend. Pence campaigned in Billings for Gianforte on Friday, so I don’t know if that influenced any of the newspapers. Newspaper endorsements probably don’t influence that many voters, but it seems the Comey affair didn’t cause these papers to not endorse the GOP candidate. Also a significant minority of voters have already voted by mail, so they obviously are not influenced by these endorsements.

    As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, Quist has been hurt by news reports of his tax problems with Montana and a history of bad debts. Bernie Sanders will come to campaign for him this week (as I recall Bernie beat Hillary in the Montana primary), and Quist has been getting a lot of $ from blue state liberals, but I still see him as the underdog. Mark Wicks, a Libertarian, probably hurts Gianforte more and could be a factor if the race becomes very close. On the other hand a left leaning write in candidate, Doug Campbell, has been endorsed by the Green Party, and will likely take more votes from Quist.

    The CD special election is May 25.

  • w920us May 14, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    It’s amazing how Trump going golfing is actually a good thing for his presidency. As he isn’t tweeting nonsense and things appear to settle down in the eye of the public.


    R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
    #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

  • Son_of_the_South May 14, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    UK-Election: It seems that UKIP has decided to fight Green fire with Purple fire. The greens decided to not run candidates in a few races where they might have significantly split the vote. UKIP has decided that two can play that game. It was widely reported that they’re not running candidates in a few key races where it would help Tory Brexiteers, but it’s actually much more than that. They’ve stood down in a host of key marginals, especially in Southern England (almost all London marginals). It’s not just a few: it’s dozens. Thanks to Upstater22 for the link from Friday’s roundup.


    24, R, TN-09
    Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

  • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    We have certified Results for NRW.
    CDU 33
    SPD 31,2
    FDP 12,6
    AfD 7,4
    Linke 6,4
    Linke 4,9

    This means there is a possibility for a CDU FDP government by the smallest margin. Laschet said he wants a stable coalition and will talk to all “Democratic parties” (which means not the AfD) while the FDP is playing hard to get at this point.

    • LtNOWIS May 14, 2017 at 10:36 pm

      You listed Linke twice. Is one of those supposed to be the Pirate Party?


      28, VA-11

      • jncca May 14, 2017 at 10:38 pm

        I bet it’s Greens.


        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • Greyhound May 14, 2017 at 10:40 pm

          First one is Green, second is Linke.


          R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

          • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 10:44 pm

            You’re right, the Linke staying out of Parliament enables a CDU FDP Coalition with 100 seats which is the exact number they need. That’s not a comfortable majority, but Ill take it.

  • Greyhound May 14, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    In what is one of the weirder coincidences in modern history, a huge number of Europe’s major political players are childless:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emmanuel-macron-and-the-barren-elite-of-a-changing-continent/article/2622925


    R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

    • roguemapper May 14, 2017 at 10:41 pm

      Macron’s wife was 54 when they married in 2007 so it’s safe to say having children isn’t on his agenda!


      Dem NC-11

      • GerGOP May 14, 2017 at 10:46 pm

        One of the best Comments I have read in a long time. XD

        • jncca May 15, 2017 at 1:09 am

          Many French presidents would argue having a 54 year old wife won’t stop them from having children with someone!


          24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

          • Son_of_the_South May 15, 2017 at 1:13 am

            Hell, they’re the French; the wife might argue that as well!


            24, R, TN-09
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

          • Izengabe May 15, 2017 at 5:21 pm

            Especially when Marcon is 25 years younger than his wife!


            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 15, 2017 at 5:24 pm

            In all fairness, I don’t think it’s entirely impossible to have a child at 54, though the medical complications would be pretty rough. A Japanese MP drew a lot of media attention for having a kid at 51, because it happened albeit with several medical complications.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

            • roguemapper May 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm

              Well, to be clear, she was 54 when they married in 2007. She’s 64 now!


              Dem NC-11

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm

      Theresa May IIRC, had some sort of medical issue or something like that, though she notably never ever talks about this.

      Secular people not having kids is definitely a modern phenomenon that is hard to explain. It’s led to an incredibly dramatic change in countries with low levels of religion (such as most of East Asia and anyone they send over here).


      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • roguemapper May 14, 2017 at 11:02 pm

        It’s notable that Shinzō Abe and Narendra Modi are also childless.


        Dem NC-11

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm

          And Park Geun-Hye and Tsai Ing-Wen!

          Modi basically came out of a right-wing monastic order though, so it’s more like Cardinal Richileu not having kids.


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

          • roguemapper May 14, 2017 at 11:15 pm

            Modi got married at 18 though! Granted it seems to be unconsummated. But I was just pointing out Abe and Modi because it’s remarkable how much of the world’s population has childless leaders right now.


            Dem NC-11

            • Greyhound May 15, 2017 at 12:11 am

              Given what dynastic politics has given the US, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing! Still a very weird trend, especially since it seems to be a purely post-2000 thing.

              Though now I’m just realizing that at least one of Trump’s kids is going to run for President at some point. That’ll be fun.


              R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

            • GOPTarHeel May 15, 2017 at 12:38 am

              Wait what? An unconsummated marriage and semi-monastic order!


              R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

  • dforston May 14, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    Mo Brooks to make a statewide announcement tomorrow #alsen

    • TennesseeMike May 14, 2017 at 11:42 pm

      IMO he is running. Does anyone here have any doubts? Legit question, not being smart.


      TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 15, 2017 at 2:58 am

    Corbyn’s leaked manifesto is…actually very popular among British voters, which could help explain why Labour is (relatively) surging in the polls.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-huge-public-support-for-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-promises-2017-5


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Son_of_the_South May 15, 2017 at 3:17 am

      Nah, the gains started before the manifesto was leaked. I tend to think that a few percent of the electorate who hate Corbyn and were undecided finally realized that the LibDems weren’t going to surge and that they just couldn’t vote Tory and came home. They probably also gained a point from UKIP as well.


      24, R, TN-09
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • Greyhound May 15, 2017 at 4:48 am

      But, as has also been pointed out, is nowhere near as popular as the Social Conservatism in the Tory one. Corbyn’s not losing because of his economic platform but rather because in an age of Brexit, mass immigration and Jihadi terrorism, he’s basically running as the Socialist older cousin of John Lindsay.

      Basically, right now the UK wants a Social Conservative with some Socialist economic tendencies, which is the reason why May is within striking distance of a majority of the popular vote. She fits the mood like a glove.


      R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

      • Greyhound May 15, 2017 at 5:02 am

        Or to put it another way, the reason why the Conservatives are suddenly popular in places that haven’t elected them for a century is because May has basically renounced the Thatcherite Fiscal Conservatism that made the party so incredibly toxic to the British Working Class. The coal fields of Southern Wales have not suddenly discovered Von Mises and joined their local Ayn Rand appreciation clubs, they have just become horrified at how far the Labour party has marched towards the Social Progressive agenda.

        Basically, the British versions of West Virginia are starting to vote Conservative for the exact same reasons why American West Virginia did in the 90s and 2000s.


        R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

    Leave a Reply

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!