Weekend Open Thread for May 19-21, 2017

Programming Update:  Our gubernatorial ratings will publish tomorrow, Saturday May 20, 2017, at Noon Eastern. As President Putin (United Russia) sits in the Kremlin laughing at the farce our politics have become and enjoying how he has become the center of our political life, it is time for this weekend’s open thread:

(1) Could former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination for President again if she ran in 2020?

(2) Are there any parts of the country where holding a pro or anti Russian stand has meaningful electoral significance?

(3) Should states have partisan primaries or adopt a jungle primary style system as seen in Louisiana?

And because it is the weekend….we give you the Trump vs. Comey rap battle you have all been waiting for HERE

Previous Post Next Post

127 Comments

  • roguemapper May 19, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    (1) No.
    (2) No.
    (3) Partisan.


    Dem NC-11

  • MikeFL May 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    1) No if Warren or Biden runs. If they don’t, then I guess it could be possible. She’d probably have to offer the VP slot to Booker beforehand so he wouldn’t jump in, and then hope someone else doesn’t catch fire. Very unlikely though.
    2) No.
    3) Partisan.


    26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

  • fzw May 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    1. No. Might as well start measuring the drapes for Elizabeth Warren.
    2. No.
    3. Jungle. We get more reasonable people like Steve Glazer then.


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

  • Greyhound May 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    1) No. Though she might be dumb enough to try
    2) Washington D.C., and that’s about it.
    3) Not really? I like it in theory, but it produces way too many odd results to be something I’d liked to see on a national scale.


    R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

  • Republican Michigander May 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    1. No. She lost to Trump so that’s an automatic disqualifier to the D’s.
    2. It only factors right now in the bubble.
    3. No. Locally it’s real bad for me. Personally, I don’t ever want to be stuck with a 2D national election choice. If I can’t stand the choices, theoretically, I could vote for a libertarian or constitutional party candidate as a protest in some cases. With 2D’s, it’s blank and that’s it.


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

  • krazen1211 May 19, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Trump won Anthony Weiner’s old Congressional district?

    It was 55-42 in 2008.

    http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/2002cong/fc009.pdf

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/numbers/clinton-trump-president-vice-president-every-neighborhood-map-election-results-voting-general-primary-nyc

  • HS May 19, 2017 at 6:55 pm

    1) I don’t think so but I have learned not to say never. And the Clintons, much like the Terminators, don’t stop.
    2) No.
    3) Partisan primaries. I have said this before, but I think it is ridiculous and wrong for non-party members to have a say in a party primary. All primaries should be closed. I like the idea of strong parties.

  • Ryan_in_SEPA May 19, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy-corbyn-amid-concerns-ira-links/

    Corbyn was investigated for IRA ties.


    31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

    • Greyhound May 19, 2017 at 7:09 pm

      I assume you mean IRA, but I could see him having some friends at the IRS too!


      R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

      • Ryan_in_SEPA May 19, 2017 at 8:12 pm

        Of course.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

    • Republican Michigander May 19, 2017 at 9:12 pm

      IRA? Damn. I don’t think he even has Irish ancestry (which is more common than people think in England).

      For the record, most of us with Irish ancestry don’t like the IRA, Boston stereotypes aside.


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

      • Greyhound May 19, 2017 at 9:21 pm

        Thing is, he was also a lefty Pro-Republican MP for his entire stint in politics. He met with the IRA many times and publicly supported their cause, which means this might actually be a load of nothing. There’s a difference between supporting a United Ireland and supporting the terrorist campaign to achieve it, and the blurriness of that line has always been a huge issue.

        Though this is one of the other reasons why I consider the Northern Ireland Troubles so interesting. I can’t think of any other major terrorist campaign where the terrorist leadership had such a high public profile and so seamlessly shifted to democratic politics.


        R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

        • roguemapper May 19, 2017 at 9:34 pm

          The British would say that this happened in 1781. 😀


          Dem NC-11

          • Greyhound May 19, 2017 at 10:14 pm

            Or 1947. Or 1921 for that matter. Really, launching terrorist insurrections against British rule is the second most common way a country is founded, right after “Europeans just up and walked away from one of their colonies”.


            R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

        • shamlet May 19, 2017 at 10:01 pm

          El Salvador had a pretty similar abrupt shift of terrorist leaders (on both sides) into legit democratic politicians.


          R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

        • GOPTarHeel May 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm

          Unionists were forced to govern with people who were open terrorists within the last twenty years. It’s quite remarkable.


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

          • Greyhound May 19, 2017 at 11:45 pm

            In all fairness, the person the Unionists put up as First Minister had actively campaigned against the Good Friday agreement, endorsed Loyalist murder squads for basically the entire duration of the Troubles along with hitting civilian targets in the Republic of Ireland as retribution, and made some thinly-veiled threats against the British security forces if they tried to interfere. Northern Ireland’s politics in general are pretty fucking crazy, and that’s even including the time the Republicans got a convicted terrorist elected to Parliament from his jail cell!


            R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

    • GOPTarHeel May 19, 2017 at 10:38 pm

      Corbyn wasn’t just tied to the IRA. He openly endorsed terrorist bombings of the British government and opppsed the Good Friday Agreement which ended the conflict because it didn’t force the Protestant Unionist majority into Ireland against its will. In other words he was more extreme than Sinn Fein.


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

  • Son_of_the_South May 19, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    UK: the Southern England target list just posted.

    http://rrhelections.com/index.php/2017/05/19/uk-target-seats-part-5-southern-england/


    23, R, TN-08
    Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

  • Red Oaks May 19, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Answers:
    1. Clinton has maybe a 5% chance of being nominated again but I wouldn’t say zero like some people would. The Clintons like being in Presidential politics and the Democrats are a top down party that falls in line behind long-time leaders so there is a slim chance despite her age.
    2. Not in any direct election done with the general public since the average person doesn’t have a strong opinion about Russia. However I could see someone’s views on Russia being a major factor in getting or not getting appointments to Washington DC based government jobs, which indirectly could affect who runs in some electoral races.
    3. I can go either way on partisan primaries vs. jungle primaries. On the one hand I would have personally appreciated jungle primaries for the majority of my life that I lived in safely Democratic areas. On the other hand jungle or top two primaries can produce fluky results depending on how many candidates run. Ideally a jungle primary would be the LA system of having the first round in November and the runoffs in December rather than the CA top two system of doing the first round in June and waiting 5 months for the second round.


    MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

  • jncca May 19, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    1. No
    2. Nobody likes Russia really. 10% approval of Putin nationally.
    3. Jungle is better than partisan but neither are perfect.


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

  • OGGoldy May 19, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    1) exceedingly unlikely
    2) no
    3) jungle IRV

  • cinyc May 19, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    1) No
    2) Inside the Beltway and on the Upper West Side, or wherever editors of the New York Times live these days.
    3) Partisan. Living in a Democrat-dominated state, I would likely choose not to vote at all if my only “choice” in the general election were between two Democrats, with no opportunity to at least write someone in as a protest. To me, there is no such thing as a good Democrat. They all will vote for Nancy Pelosi or another Democrat as speaker and against Republicans on the key issues 99% of the time. An allegedly more “moderate” Democrat is no different than a “progressive” in that respect.

  • SwingStateRepublican May 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    1. No
    2. No
    3. Jungle, leads to more moderates and gives voice to minority party in safe D and R districts.


    21, NC-4, Ex-R

  • Izengabe May 19, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    1) I don’t think Hillary could beat Kanye in 2020.

    2) In 1971 yes. In 2017 not so much outside of Brighton Beach.

    3) I think all federal & legislative elections should be partisan primaries but I favor using jungle primaries for local municipal elections. Jungle primaries favor consensus candidates which is what you want on a municipal level. The party structure of our federal government enforces party discipline making a partisan primary a better system since.


    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • Manhatlibertarian May 19, 2017 at 9:07 pm

    According to decisiondeskhq for the GA 6 June 20 special election about 4300 absentee ballots have been returned as of yesterday. In April 6000 absentees were returned in total and they think with 4 weeks to go the total absentees returned should easily surpass the April amount (in person early voting doesn’t start until May 30). They don’t give a breakdown by party ballot but caution against assuming the absentees will necessarily be heavily for Ossoff because unlike April there is now only one GOP candidate, Karen Handel, whereas in April many GOP voters were initially uncertain about which GOP candidate to vote for.

    In Montana there are now 237,329 absentee ballots submitted out of 351,681 requested as of yesterday. This is 97% of the amount submitted in the 2014 election, and with a week to go to election day, decision desk assumes the absentee ballot count will easily surpass 2014. Not clear who (if anyone) benefits from so many absentees.

  • LtNOWIS May 19, 2017 at 11:58 pm

    1) No.

    3) It’s good to have a mix of systems. It’s a marker of the federal character of the United States, that states can do things differently. So in that sense, I don’t have an opinion on what any state beyond my own “should” do on this matter, as it’s not my place to decide for them.


    28, VA-11

  • TennesseeMike May 20, 2017 at 12:57 am

    (1) Could former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination for President again if she ran in 2020?
    2016 shows we should never say never. However, I doubt even many Democrats are really interested in another Hillary bid. So I would say she has a 1% chance of winning the nomination if she ran.

    (2) Are there any parts of the country where holding a pro or anti Russian stand has meaningful electoral significance?
    It may be bad to have a pro Russian view in some places but most voters don’t really care.

    (3) Should states have partisan primaries or adopt a jungle primary style system as seen in Louisiana?
    I prefer partisan primaries.


    TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

  • Indy1975a May 20, 2017 at 2:08 am

    1. Hillary’s political career is finished.
    2. It depends on what you mean by pro-Russian. A candidate who is running openly as pro-Putin would be a burden in much of the country. But few candidates are that dumb, even if they are pro-Putin.
    3. Partisan for all federal races, jungle for all local races. Not sure for state offices.


    Independent, R until November 2016

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 2:47 am

    1. She won’t run again, but if she did, I’d give her a 40% shot. Hillary Clinton’s political skills are thoroughly underrated. Not that she’s an amazing political genius, but she isn’t the bumbling nincompoop that conventional wisdom has bestowed upon her after 2016. Even in the fiercest days of the primary, Hillary Clinton retained solid 80% or so favoraiblity ratings among Democratic voters. That is a feat that no Republican in the GOP primary did. Plus, the email stuff is probably buried forever now. Everyone is sick of that stuff by now. That 40% is roughly the same chance I would have given Romney in 2016 had he not been scared off by Jeb! money.

    2. Only 1/6th of American can find Ukraine on a map – and this subgroup of America almost all favors a dovish stance towards Russia! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

    3. No real opinion.


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

  • prsteve11 May 20, 2017 at 3:40 am

    1. Not likely that she will run and quite unlikely the Dems would nominate her. But I disagree with those who say she was just a horrible candidate and that’s why Trump won. But it’s fine I suppose because it just means people keep underestimating President Trump.

    2. I don’t being pro-Russian helps much anywhere in the US.

    3. The jungle primary system is not beneficial to democracy, imo. We saw what happened in the California Senate race last year, where conservatives were robbed of having a candidate to support in a race as important as the US Senate and I believe that encouraged Republican voter apathy statewide in California. Also, in Louisiana there’s always these weird runoffs in December that are lower turnout affairs that can be unpredictable and just don’t make much sense. Personally, I prefer one-on-one races chosen by primaries.


    SC-03, Conservative Republican

  • RogueBeaver May 20, 2017 at 7:43 am

    Iran: Rouhani has won 59/39. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/middleeast/iran-election-hassan-rouhani.html


    QC/Blue Tory/M

    • HS May 20, 2017 at 10:39 am

      Yeah, but it is not a real election, and we have no idea if those numbers are real.

      • jncca May 20, 2017 at 12:30 pm

        Sure, but the important thing is that Rouhani stays president and is seen as having a mandate.

        While the Iranian election is always a choice between terrible and even worse, terrible beat even worse, so that’s something.


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

        • TennesseeMike May 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm

          Or maybe the whole thing is a staged play to dupe the west. Honestly, I don’t trust anyone over there to even tell me what time it is.


          TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

          • jncca May 20, 2017 at 3:06 pm

            There’s no evidence that the election was fraudulent beyond the disqualification of candidates who are not theocrats (which is a big deal, but given that stipulation this was probably a fair election)


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

        • segmentation_fault May 20, 2017 at 11:58 pm

          If he succeeds in diminishing the power of the Supreme Leader, who is the real villain in Iran, that would be a positive development.


          En Marche!

    • gladstone May 21, 2017 at 8:54 am

      More important on the ground was that the Principalists lost the Tehran city council for the first time since 2003. Badly. It is has been a feeder system for their national candidates. Ahamdinejad and then Qalibaf were both mayors of the city.

      http://www.enca.com/world/iran-reformists-make-clean-sweep-in-tehran-council-elections

  • andyroo312 May 20, 2017 at 10:33 am

    On the first question, no. Clinton would obviously begin the overwhelming front-runner for the nomination but face far more formidable primary competition than the ’16 wannabes. Over time, she’d look more and more desperate and washed-up, even among Democrats. Think Geraldine Ferraro’s 1998 U.S. Senate run in New York.


    MA-7

    • Indy1975a May 20, 2017 at 10:56 am

      In retrospect, she may well have looked like Ferraro in 2016 if she faced Biden or someone else formidable. Facing an anti-capitalist nutjob as her main primary opponent, she was able to escape.


      Independent, R until November 2016

  • cer May 20, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Interesting UK poll.

    Approval / Disapproval ratings of…

    T. May: 48 / 31
    J. Corbyn: 27 / 45
    T. Farron: 16 / 37
    P. Nuttall: 10 / 46

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/865963195063836672


    Conservative first, Republican second!

    • Ryan_in_SEPA May 20, 2017 at 12:39 pm

      This probably explains why the Tories numbers are stable in nearly every poll, but why the other parties have variations in nearly every poll.


      31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 4:01 pm

        It’s kind of hilarious that Jeremy Corbyn is still the second most popular party leader.


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

    • segmentation_fault May 20, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      Big missed opportunity for Lib Dems.


      En Marche!

      • Red Oaks May 20, 2017 at 7:52 pm

        Perhaps an even bigger whiff is the Green Party. In 2015 the Lib Dems collapsed and the Greens made at least popular vote gains. There was a plausible path for the Green Party to eventually overtake and supplant the Lib Dems. Instead they’ve decided they hate Brexit and the Tories so much that they are abandoning many seats altogether.


        MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

  • Manhatlibertarian May 20, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    Don’t know if this was ever posted here, but in April the GOP picked up the AG of New Hampshire when Gov Sununu nominated and the NH Executive Council approved Republican Gordon McDonald for the position; he replaced Joe Foster, a Democrat. McDonald is an attorney who served as COS for GOP NH Senator Gordon Humphrey in the 1980s and he was a Rubio delegate to the 2016 GOP convention. By my count there are now 28 GOP AGs, 21 Dems and 1 Independent (Alaska). Note that the State AGs are not only important for state issues, but lately often intervene in federal courts over national issues, like EOs for example.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Attorney_General_of_New_Hampshire

  • shamlet May 20, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Fun quiz. Not the actual quiz – spoiler alert, they’re all districts. But the fun part is to guess which district is which (when you click on it, it reveals the seat). It’s pretty damn tough – my spatial skills aren’t good enough to disassemble the rotating and duplicating (though not thinking of pre-2016 districts also hurt me) I only got 3/10. http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2017/04/district-or-inkblot-quiz?utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=contentdiscovery-mar&utm_content=linkpost-values


    R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

    • Izengabe May 20, 2017 at 8:55 pm

      That’s because the real district lines look nothing like the pictures. NY-10 looks nothing like the inkblot they claim is NY-10


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • shamlet May 20, 2017 at 9:23 pm

        Yep, they’re quite inconsistent about what they call water.


        R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

  • Manhatlibertarian May 20, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    In the West Native American reservations usually go Dem, but in the Montana special election, Repub Gianforte has just received the endorsement of the Crow Indians. The reason appears to be that the Crow get a good part of their income from a coal mine on the reservation and Gianforte is seen as more favorable to coal than Quist. Not a whole lot of votes, but in an apparently close election every vote counts.

    https://bigskyheadlines.com/2017/05/crow-tribe-endorses-greg-gianforte-for-congress-2/

    I also took a look at what percent of the votes the Libertarian candidate got for the House in Montana in 2016; it was 3.26% according to the greenpapers.com. Likely the Libertarian takes more votes from Gianforte than Quist, so it is possible the Libertarian can be a spoiler if the election is close. There is also a candidate endorsed by the Green Party, who will likely hurt Quist, but he is a write-in candidate and as such probably won’t get many votes.

  • StatenIslandTest May 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Jim Comey’s hometown of Allendale, NJ definitely not passing the Staten Island Test:
    http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2017/05/19/hometown-allendale-james-comey-no-nut-job-but-principled-career-man/327287001/

    Local results for President:
    2016 Clinton 1759, Trump 1756
    2012 Obama 1322 Romney 2057
    2008 Obama 1537 McCain 2033
    2004 Kerry 1398 Bush 2108


    31, Jersey City

  • Republican Michigander May 20, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    https://mirsnews.com/welcome.php
    From MIRS. (Michigan insider political news org, one of the few I take seriously)
    “”Epstein Visits D.C.; Could U.S. Senate Race Be In Her Future?
    “Lena EPSTEIN, one of President Donald TRUMP’s six campaign co-chairs in Michigan during the 2016 election, has recently returned from a trip in Washington D.C. and is widely expected in Republican circles to announce a U.S. Senate bid for 2018, possibly as soon as next week.”””

    I don’t know her personally, although I know of her. She’s a businesswoman from Bloomfield Hills. I’m keeping my powder dry for now. After seeing two disastrous campaigns for Senate, one of the things I need to see before I get on board is a strong campaign work ethic. I’m not adverse to taking a gamble over a “B-list” name whose “his/her turn” as that has not worked well lately.


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

    • Boehnerwasright May 20, 2017 at 7:59 pm

      A candidate like this might be the best we get in this race. Stabbenow seems to be a really strong incumbent and Trump will likely hurt most republicans in 2018, so which strong candidate wants to run in such a diffcult race?

      • Republican Michigander May 21, 2017 at 7:23 pm

        Stabenow has a lot of soft support who has a charmed life when it comes to campaigns.

        She lost a primary to Howard Wolpe in 94 and became Lt Governor candidate with Wolpe before John Engler massacred them with 61% taking all except Genesee County and Wayne County. To her credit, she recovered from that.

        She made a comeback in 96 defeating Dick Chrysler for the then much more D leaning 8th District which had a smaller Livingston County, little of Oakland, Wasthenaw suburbs (then less D), and Flint’s suburbs (more D than today). This is the seat Mike Rogers won in 2000 by about 120 votes.

        She caught a break in 98 massacring a weak R state rep candidate in 98 who didn’t get base support over abortion issue.

        In 2000, Spence Abraham ran the worse incumbent campaign I’ve ever seen and lost to Stabenow in an upset for Senate.

        2006 – Wave year and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard was abandoned by Liddy Dole and NRSC. Some here wondered why I had a lot of venom for NRSC a few years back. This is a big part of it. They recruited him and abandoned him.

        2012 – (SMH) Pete Hoektra’s campaign was one of the two worst non sacrificial lamb intended campaigns I’ve ever seen.

        Stabenow may or may not catch another break in 2018. That largely depends on McConnell and Ryan more than anything else. If things get done, it won’t be as bad. If things don’t get done, we’re going to get killed. That’s a bigger deal to the average person than Russia, tweets, or any stupid stuff that goes in one ear and out the other for anyone who isn’t a political junkie.


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

        • rdelbov May 21, 2017 at 7:27 pm

          I agree 100% but the GOP needs a super candidate to take her down and so far I am seeing it. Saying that Ernst was nowhere to be found in May 2013 and Senator Sullivan was the unknown Sullivan in AK in May 2013 so things can happen.

  • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    So the Tories and Theresa May seem to be trying to lose this campaign. Their leads in the latest polls are down to 9,12,12,12 in polls released to today. Most worryingly, in the one released after her unpopular manifesto launched, the Tories actually lost support instead of just seeing Labour consolidate the opposition.

    Now British polling is notoriously bad, and it’s entirely possible that this is just noise. But they’ve run a campaign that reminds me of Hillary Clinton. Quiet, running on uninspired policy, trusting that their opponent’s manifest unfitness will lead them to victory. They aren’t trying hard enough. It’s a stupid strategy and I’m nervous.


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

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 6:25 pm

      Is that bad for the Tories? Seems like good news to me. If the Tories just get the same number of seats again, it’s good for Labour to get a higher share of the vote as to keep Corbynism alive. Tories winning 44-36 seems like a best case scenario to me!


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

      • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 6:45 pm

        Parties shouldn’t try to game the composition of their opposition other than destroying them. Again, Hillary Clinton played this exactly same game.


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

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 7:05 pm

          I agree that is normally true, but Theresa May has two reasons IMO that could change this.

          1) A smaller majority enhances her bargaining power with the EU. She can make much more credible ultimatums: with a smaller majority, she can plausibly claim that she is offering as much as she can that would not trigger a backbench revolt that creates the hardest of hard brexits.

          2) The UK has a much more democratic system, and anything a PM Corbyn does horrible can be easily reversed by the next PM. Not true in the US, where it would be very difficult to reverse liberal control of the Supreme Court (for example, if we lost in 2016, we’d probably have to resort to extraconstitutional means to restore democracy). Similarly, no matter what happens in 2020, the Democrats cannot easily unappoint Gorsuch.


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

          • Red Oaks May 20, 2017 at 7:22 pm

            If a small majority with Corbyn as the opposition leader is preferable then she could have just not called for a early election at all and stuck with the parliament she has for the next 3 years.


            MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm

              Here’s the problem: 2020 is not going to be a good year for the Tories. I do believe that they’re going to make a “success out of Brexit”, but even a successful Brexit means some shock to long-established business arrangements and a short-term drop in GDP. A successful Brexit means British business surges back dramatically with new global arrangements after a brief Brexit mini-drop in GDP.

              A 2022 election is thus MUCH better for the Tories than a 2020 election. A similar rationale led the Japanese LDP to call a 2014 election (after they won the 2012 elections), though Abenomics has not really been that much of a long-term success.

              This is a great time to call an election because the Remainer opposition has embarrassed themselves by attacking and sabotaging the Brexit deal before it even exists. Of course, it’s possible the deal might not be that good, so it’s better to hold the election right before a deal is struck. Which is now.


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

          • segmentation_fault May 20, 2017 at 7:23 pm

            A smaller majority strengthens her bargaining power with the EU??? That’s literally the opposite of what she’s campaigning on, saying she called an early election because she needs a big win to “strengthen her hand.”


            En Marche!

    • GorrestFump May 20, 2017 at 6:30 pm

      The fundamentals are pretty bad for the Cons considering problems with the NHS,economy, deficit etc. Corbyn may the only thing keeping them ahead, events like the NHS hack and nurse strikes are something that would’ve doomed them if they had a competent opposition leader.

    • Greyhound May 20, 2017 at 6:32 pm

      Except adding those 4 polls into the tracker actually pushed the Tory vote % up .1%. Its just that what little gains the LibDems have made since 2015 are just consolidating to Labour. Right now the averages are basically “2015, but if the Tories got 2/3rds of the UKIP vote”.


      R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

      • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 7:02 pm

        The only one of those four polls released after the manifesto was YouGov though.

        I’m just saying that they’re running a worryingly mediocre campaign. May isn’t leveraging her popularity through lots of appearances.

        If Jim Messina blows this like he blew Brexit, the Italian referendum and the Hillary campaign…


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

      • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 4:17 am

        Exactly. It sucks, but the left and the right are consolidating back to something like the pre-1983 postwar Tory/Labour slugfests. The right consolidated first and moreso than the left, but they’ve gone as far as they can go with that. The sheer size of the initial polling lead is now causing tactical voting on the left in favor of Labour and squeezing the other parties. It doesn’t help that Farron is running such a shitty campaign. May’s campaign isn’t inspired or anything, but she’s not really losing ground (a point at most). Her problem is that the left is panicking and holding their nose even if they hate Corbyn. In fact, there are even reports of Labour campaigners telling voters on the doorstep that they should vote for Labour to support a post-Cornyn opposition. In my opinion this is utter nonsense, as he won’t leave with these popular vote numbers. Len McCluskey is already pretty much saying that Corbyn will stay if they don’t drop below 200 seats.


        23, R, TN-08
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • Ryan_in_SEPA May 21, 2017 at 10:06 am

          Yes that is what is going on here. England is heading back to be a 2 party state with some minor party nonsense on the edges. Basically we are seeing Australian style politics come back to the UK.


          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

    • segmentation_fault May 20, 2017 at 7:30 pm

      I’m no expert on international politics and parliamentary systems but why do you call for an early election when you have an absolute majority already. Just so stupid.


      En Marche!

      • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 11:44 pm

        She’s bound to Cameron’s manifesto which has lots of impractical policies he expected to bargain away in a coalition. If she goes beyond the manifesto the House of Lords has the power to stop or slow her down.


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

        • roguemapper May 21, 2017 at 1:32 am

          When I see the word manifesto I can’t help but picture old Marxists penning screeds on some trivial dispute over the dialectic.


          Dem NC-11

          • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 11:51 pm

            Ha! They’re actually quite important, and other than the LibDems they’re entirely written by the MPs and leadership staff alone without any input from their mass membership. It would be like Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” actually mattering other than being used as a doorstop in Freedom Caucus offices.


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

        • Jon May 21, 2017 at 1:15 pm

          House of Lords doesn’t have power to stop anything; what they retain the power to do is to delay bills going beyond manifesto by an entire year.


          45, M, MO-02

          • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 11:49 pm

            Right, that’s true. But in the length of a five-year government or with a controversial, complicated policy like social care that’s a major delay.


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

    • fzw May 20, 2017 at 8:56 pm

      Forgive me for not being well-versed in British politics, but how would you characterize Tories vs. Labour, other than Labour being batshit crazy under Corbyn? Are Tories like a hybrid of American centrism while Labour is a bunch of Bernie Bro/Jill Stein purists?


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

      • Greyhound May 20, 2017 at 10:06 pm

        Labour is the party that stretches in ideology from Barack Obama to outright Communists. The Libdems are kind of like Bill Clinton’s flavor of economic centrism combined with a weird mixture of rural conservative populism and social progressiveism. The Tories are the Jeb Bush party, but May is turning them towards being the Trump party, if Trump was a political veteran insider who knows what he’s doing.


        R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

        • segmentation_fault May 20, 2017 at 10:18 pm

          What Tories have become IMO is a mix of Barack Obama and Ann Coulter.

          One minute you have May giving a speech targeting the middle class, trying to be inclusive, and using a bit of class warfare, and the next she is talking about how people who aren’t nationalists aren’t citizens.


          En Marche!

          • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 11:47 pm

            No, she said that if you claim to be a citizen of the world (aka saying you’re above being British) you’re really a citizen of nowhere, because there’s no such thing as a global polity. She says those sorts of people don’t know anything about citizenship because they feel no duty to help the left behind in their own countries. That has roughly nothing in common with Ann Coulter. Although Barack Obama does fit her critique of a “citizen of nowhere” to a T.


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

      • GOPTarHeel May 20, 2017 at 11:51 pm

        The Tories are conservative in the Burkean sense of the word and have never been as ideological as the GOP. They’ve traditionally been something like the old Rockefeller Republicans-center right on economics, somewhat socially liberal, and internationalist. Under May they’ve moved in a more culturally conservative direction and ditched some of the cosmopolitanism and shifted slightly left on economic issues.


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

        • Izengabe May 21, 2017 at 10:32 am

          Except for Margaret Thatcher who was a real conservative. She was Ronald Reagan’s ideological soulmate. There is still a Thatcher wing in the Conservative Party just like there is still a Reagan wing of the GOP despite the efforts of the folks trying to turn both parties into one that supports Populist right wing big government or establishment corporate big government.


          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 11:28 am

            Thatcher was obviously an economic liberal and put through extensive privatizations of under-performing state industries. She is one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century in my opinion and made Britain an economic and military power again. But she (and this applies to Reagan too for that matter) was never the dogmatic libertarian that she has been painted as. She was, for her time, relatively socially progressive. She valued and invested in the NHS, and constantly spoke of economic growth as a way to ensure better-funded social services. Like all Tories, she had a major streak of pragmatism, and when that streak ended she was deposed by her colleagues.

            Besides, any definition of “conservative” that only includes one brand of right-leaning thought and excludes every center-right party on earth, including most of the GOP, is ridiculously narrow.


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

            • TexasR May 21, 2017 at 12:24 pm

              Why should conservative become synonymous with populist though? We have separate words for a reason.
              One is a conservative because they believe that small government, with few regulations, low taxes, and non-essential services being left to the private sector which performs them better leads to greater economic prosperity both for the country as a whole and the individual. A conservative believes that, as Reagan said “government isn’t the solution to the problem, government is the problem” and that “the five scariest words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Populists believe things which are antithetical to this, thus the need for different words. Unless and until we realize that conservatism != populism, any discussion on the future and direction of the Republican and UK Conservative parties will be a complete waste of time.


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

              • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm

                You’re describing libertarianism, not conservatism as the term has been used since Edmund Burke’a day. Burkean conservativism recognizes the role of institutions and informal bonds in society and disdains radical reforms. Sometimes that means major economic liberalization is needed, like in Reagan and Thatcher’s day. Sometimes it means focusing on the maintenance of the nation state against supranational institutions like the EU and managing immigration so that societal bonds don’t fray. It’s an adaptive philosophy that is always skeptical of government’s ability to manage huge new projects. But it isn’t philosophical opposed to the existence of the state, the necessity of a safety net, or adapting with times. I don’t deny that there are libertarian flavors of conservatism but they aren’t the only flavor and they certainly aren’t the most popular and they’re usually pretty unpopular.

                Adapting with the times is what May is doing. She’s trying to channel the very real anger that produced Brexit into something productive that preserves the U.K.’s union and a healthy society. She really isn’t a populist.


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

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm

                  Even Burkean Conservatism is strongly tinged with Liberalism. After all, Burke was a Whig, not a Tory!

                  After all, can someome credibly claim that Joseph De Maistre wasn’t a “true conservative”?


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

              • rdelbov May 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm

                I would not believe in conservatism unless I also believed it was the best political/economic plan for everyone!! In my opinion whether you are a billionaire or a pauper/homeless person in the long run for you, your family, your descendants, your community, your state, your country and the world conservatism is the best political/economic approach for the greater good.

                No no do not let Bernie Sanders types hijack populism. The greater good for the most people was, is and always will be conservatism. My goodness Phil Gramm showed us that conservatism and populism -as did Reagan- that populism and conservatism can exist side by side. Some people get confused (not saying this about texasr) that conservatism and regulations can’t exist. I am all for capitalism but when there are two companies that corner the American sugar market and then limit the import of sugar is that conservatism or crony capitalism? I don’t see limiting carbon dioxide for car emissions as violating Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the marketplace. I firmly believe that the freer markets-the smallest government-fewest wasteful regulations will provide the greater good for the most people. Historical populism railed against monopolistic railroads, oil cartels, grain cartels and government cartels. Prairie populism saw 1st hand that abuse of the free market by crony capitalism is not conservatism in action.

  • Red Oaks May 20, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    Texas straight ticket voting elimination heading to Greg Abbott’s desk:
    http://www.ktre.com/story/35478441/texas-legislature-oks-eliminating-straight-ticket-voting

    One notable change from the original bill is that it will only go into effect in 2020 rather than 2018. I guess the Senate wanted to keep it around for one more cycle when the incumbent Abbott will still be on the ticket.


    MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 20, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    In the CA-34 election, I got a direct mailer for Ahn disguised as a jury duty letter. Not sure if it’s legit, but it looks pretty bad! I’m still gonna vote for the guy, but this will miff people off!

    Though I knew it was a fake letter from the start, since I don’t have a driver’s license.


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

    • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 4:21 am

      You live in L.A. and you don’t have a driver’s license? How in the world do you get to work? Do you use that inadequate money pit that Los Angeles calls a subway?


      23, R, TN-08
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • californianintexas May 21, 2017 at 8:59 am

        The 34th district includes downtown, so work might be walking distance.


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

      • Red Oaks May 21, 2017 at 9:41 am

        Walking to work is more doable than you might think. For the past 10 years I’ve live in two different metro areas in Michigan (not exactly a densely populated hotbed of public transportation) and have owned homes within walking distance of my offices. Both were in suburbs as opposed to inner cities I might add too. It definitely is easier to do this if you’re a single person. Having a more walkable lifestyle doesn’t require New Urbanist Central Planning though. One of easiest ways to do this is to buy or rent a home located not far from major roads (It doesn’t have to be right on the main road). Many people prefer to buy homes buried deep within subdivisions/developments which causes it to take forever to get out of the neighborhood and forces everyone to take cars everywhere. Because of this common preference for interior homes, places closer to main roads actually sell at a discount so there is a great opportunity for those who go against the grain.

        The downside of not owning a car isn’t really commuting; it’s being able to see family & friends and do fun things on evenings and weekends. You are pretty limited in how far you can realistically go on a regular basis without your own vehicle. I have always had a car as an adult.


        MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

        • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 9:47 am

          Well, I don’t drive (due to vision issues), but I also live a three-minute walk from a Metro stop in DC. I just couldn’t imagine living in L.A. and not being able to drive.


          23, R, TN-08
          Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

          • Izengabe May 21, 2017 at 10:34 am

            I have to believe that over time Uber and technological advances could change that dynamic. I know people in LA giving up their cars in exchange for taking Uber everywhere. Between making car payments, gas, insurance, parking and other car related expenses using Uber could be cheaper than driving.


            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

            • w920us May 21, 2017 at 11:47 am

              20 years from now… Leave it to liberals, and soon it’ll be a constitutional right to be driven around for free!


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

              • cer May 21, 2017 at 11:50 am

                Many on the left already believe that having health insurance is a right, and if they push this one as well, wouldn’t shock me at all.


                Conservative first, Republican second!

                • Upstater22 May 21, 2017 at 4:35 pm

                  This is one of the things I bring up to people when talking about health care. If a limited resource like health care is a ‘right’, then aren’t other limited resources also a ‘right’? Doesn’t everyone have the ‘right’ to transportation and therefore a ‘right’ to a car? It logically follows.

                  Personally, I can’t imagine living in such a narrow bubble where a car isn’t necessary. A car is freedom. Doesn’t mean the government is required to provide one for every citizen.


                  Conservative, because facts are more important than feelings

            • Red Oaks May 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm

              Maybe it will but we’re not there yet. I have found Uber to be awfully expensive compared to car ownership. Last year I had to take a one way trip of just under 20 miles for $47. Doing that every other day would be $940 per month. No thanks.


              MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

              • Red Oaks May 21, 2017 at 2:41 pm

                Meant to say that doing this 20 times per month would be $940 per month but the overall point still stands.


                MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 21, 2017 at 6:49 pm

        The subway isn’t bad at all. $1.75 takes you anywhere. And it reliably comes every 10 minutes. An infinitely better experience than the DC Metro. The only “issue” with the LA metro is that it doesn’t go to many places for legal reasons (ie it can’t go to SWPL areas or it’ll get hit with a million CEQA lawsuits from the residents)

        The new Uberpool thing is also really cheap. I’ve also never really gotten a driver’s license because I’ve never lived in a city where I really needed a car. The closest I’ve ever come to really wanting a car was actually SF, not LA, especially because this was in the pre-Uber era.


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

        • Jon May 21, 2017 at 7:04 pm

          In the mid 80s; Dad considered a car a necessity to get to NAS Long Beach from the Navy Housing in Los Alamitos just over the Orange county line. The same applied to getting to the grocery store; about the only thing a car wasn’t needed was getting to the school I attended.


          45, M, MO-02

        • roguemapper May 21, 2017 at 7:09 pm

          Do you know how to drive in the first place? I’m just curious. I’ve known a few city-dwellers who had never driven a vehicle. It’s tough for me to imagine. I learned how to drive with a stick-shift station wagon when I was in 6th grade. Anyway, if you do know how to drive why not get a DL just in case?


          Dem NC-11

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy May 21, 2017 at 7:23 pm

            Took the test pretty young, passed it, and then never drove again. DL eventually expired and I never bothered to renew it. Would be a pain to get another one at this point.

            Concidentally, this means I typically have to use my passport as a photo ID.


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

          • Izengabe May 21, 2017 at 10:45 pm

            I’ve never owned a car in my life and I know lots of people who dont know how to drive. But its one thing to do this in Manhattan, where a car is a very expensive hassle. Its quite another to live car-free in a place like LA! As Red Oaks points out spending $940 per month to rent a car or take Uber for 20 days a month might be very expensive in a place like Michigan, in Manhattan where “cheap” parking garages can charge over $500 a month its a bargain! For the 2 or 3 weekends a month that I may need a car getting a rental or taking Uber is WAY cheaper than owning a car.


            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

            • roguemapper May 21, 2017 at 11:16 pm

              Oh, I get that. I once lived on the Upper East Side remember. I even dated a woman who was in her late 30s and had never stepped foot off of Manhattan! But L.A. is a whole different ballgame. So, I was just curious is all. Needless to mention I don’t find it odd for people in big dense cities like New York to not own a car. I just find it interesting when people have never driven a vehicle at all.


              Dem NC-11

              • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 11:48 pm

                She had never left Manhattan? How in the world do you live your entire life on an island less than 14 miles long?!


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

                • Izengabe May 22, 2017 at 11:52 am

                  A better question might be why in the world would they want to leave Manhattan? 😉


                  Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

                  • Republican Michigander May 22, 2017 at 3:19 pm

                    Reminds me of some Yoopers who have never been across the Mackinac Bridge. They had no reason to go to lower Michigan (although they have been to Wisconsin).


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

  • w920us May 20, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    Very good news.
    GOP talks of narrowing ‘blue-slip’ rule for judges
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/334296-gop-talks-of-narrowing-blue-slip-rule-for-judges


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

    • rdelbov May 20, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      Let’s just say that the democrats are fibbing (I hesitate to say lying about anyone) about past blue slip usage.

      During 2015-2016 when only two Obama circuit court nominees were confirmed (there was nearly a dozen nominees who did not get a vote) the blue slip was not involved. Other then two nominees the GOP blockaded all of Obama circuit judges and most of his district court nominees. Many of them had blue slips returned from GOP senators. They just did not get a vote. To imply this was a blue slip precedence is completely inaccurate.

      Many of Bush 43’s circuit court nominees had two returned blue slips and yet they never got a vote. So much for the respect that home state senators have in DC in judicial matters. Home state deference means what now? Oh it only means something when the Ds are in the White house?

      There was another article last week and this fleshes out more comments but clearly historically circuit court nominees were chosen by US senators of the opposite party-The President was given wide leeway to make his choices.

      • rdelbov May 20, 2017 at 9:48 pm

        I might add that this article details what I consider to the worst abuse of the blue slip custom

        http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-senators-urge-white-house-to-give-panels-chosen-judges-a-chance/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=mobile-app&utm_campaign=ios

        Washington’s two light weight senators set up a commission to send names to the President for him to nominate to the courts. Basically if the President does not nominate their choices they blue slip them. President Bush 43 swallowed hard took what he could get from this procedure while Obama was glad to nominate the mostly liberal judges that came from this commission during his years. Historically, however, the President with consultation with senators or congressman from his own party have nominated people to the courts-Washington senators want the President to rubber stamp their suggestions or else.

        My goodness it is all turned upside down.

      • krazen1211 May 21, 2017 at 8:03 am

        Well, I could go on for a while about this subject!

        The Dems definitely played hardball on some seats during the Bush years with this blue-slip. Some seats from Michigan were held open for a full 4 years, first by blue slip and then by using the filibuster. Do you think Kerry would have filled those seats if he won in 2004? Of course!

        Here’s a nice old goodie from Ed Whelan…..one of the guys blocked was this guy Rod Rosenstein for a position in Maryland, who is now the Deputy Attorney General. Quite a big WATN thing.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/272670/blue-slip-privilege-and-seventh-circuit-nominee-victoria-nourse-ed-whelan

        I suspect the GOP will play ball if they are being fair. Senators like to do that. If not, they will have a problem, because the filibuster as a backstop is gone. They got rid of that.

        As Whelan noted the seats are apportioned to circuits, and not states (with the circuit, they are informally dealt out to states roughly by population, but this is not a hard and fast rule), so if someone like Kamala Harris decides to be a problem, then I suspect Trump might just pick someone from Idaho instead of California to fill the seat! If Dems don’t like that they could agree to split the circuit so there are no R states…win/win in my book.

        • rdelbov May 21, 2017 at 8:20 am

          Based on the old rule of 60 and the new rule of 51 D and as payback R senators often held up senators for entire circuits. Levin held up votes for 6th circuit judges while Gorton did 9th circuit judges while Helms did 4th circuit judges. The assignment of circuit court judges to particular states is not done by law but rather by senator/Presidential tradition. I suspect one reason the 10th circuit is considered over stocked with judges is that every state in the Union (including Puerto Rico) has its own semi-designated judge. In the Bush 43 years a CA judge -who moved to Idaho and set up his station there-retired. Bush tried to replace with an Idaho judge and Feinstein/Boxer stopped it. They claimed it was a CA seat-the man later was appointed to the Idaho seat.

          As noted the Ds want to take blue slips to a new level–ie we select the judges and you Mr President just nominate them. R senators did not apply that to Obama during the 2009/2014 years. Of course after 2013 Obama and the Ds pretty ignored the GOP with the nuclear option. The rule of the blue slip for Circuit judges has been fluid over the years. During the Carter/Kennedy chair years circuit court nominations were the President to make. During the Bush43 years Circuit court nominees did not get votes unless they were acceptable to the D senators and often blue slips did not matter one whit. So whine whine all you want. The Ds abuse the system and have very short memories.

  • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 6:55 am

    UK: Blair is thinking about forming anew party.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4526272/Tony-Blair-s-talks-mogul-new-centrist-party.html

    Wow. If a big chunk of the PLP reforms into a Blair-led SDP Part Deux, we’ll have quite a show.


    23, R, TN-08
    Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • Greyhound May 21, 2017 at 7:33 am

      Don’t know how well they’d do though. May is pretty much perfectly positioned to box Labour out of the political center of the UK, and just about every political trend in the UK over the last decade has been a move away from “Blair-ism”.

      But more importantly, they’re playing defense in the Doncaster seats? What the hell? Even the most optimistic outlook for the Tories doesn’t include seats the Labour party routinely gets >50% of the vote in. If those are seriously in play we should be talking about whether or not Corbyn’s Labour party can hit 150 seats, let alone 200, because holy shit on a stick that is bad.


      R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

      • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 7:38 am

        Well, the North is much worse for Labour than Southern England is. Still, I’m skeptical that the Doncaster seats are competitive. They might have been before, but not after the recent narrowing in the polls.


        23, R, TN-08
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • Ryan_in_SEPA May 21, 2017 at 10:21 am

          Well we might be seeing a Lutheran Triangle style situation going on up there.


          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

          • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 11:50 am

            In what way?


            23, R, TN-08
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

            • Ryan_in_SEPA May 21, 2017 at 12:17 pm

              Large number of working class whites who would be voting for the center-right party if they were from a different region of the country years ago.


              31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

              • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm

                Maybe. I could see that in the two outer seats. However, Labour did fairly well there in the local elections.


                23, R, TN-08
                Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 7:39 am

        Lol. Andrew Neill is saying exactly what I’ve been saying about going back to the two-party system on Sunday Politics.


        23, R, TN-08
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

  • cer May 21, 2017 at 11:31 am

    The UK Tories are still in a position to kill Labour on election day….. no worries!


    Conservative first, Republican second!

    • Upstater22 May 21, 2017 at 4:42 pm

      After the recent polls, the electoral calculus website has narrowed their prediction down to 391 Con to 185 Labour. For me, this is getting into more reasonable territory. 400 Conservative seats is mind-blowingly ridiculous to me. 385 seats, under the current lines, is 50+ seats picked up and still a stellar night. It could even be lower than that and still be a great victory. The polls showing Tories up 20+ raised expectations beyond belief.


      Conservative, because facts are more important than feelings

      • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm

        They’re down to a 43-34 lead in another poll, this time from Survation. https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/866392133200228354

        I agree that they’ll likely bounce back but I despise these prevent defense sort of campaigns.


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

        • CTIronman May 21, 2017 at 10:02 pm

          May has a significantly positive image. Corbyn is seriously underwater. The Tories are whack to issue a manifesto that said a damm thing. If you can win a personality battle don’t put anything in the way. Sigh

  • GOPTarHeel May 21, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    As someone who has been highly critical of the last few weeks of the Trump admin, I have to say that he’s done very well on his trip so far. I particularly like the fact that he’s going in without a overly broad ideological goal like W or Obama.


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

    • segmentation_fault May 22, 2017 at 12:16 am

      The bar was set very low for Trump though


      En Marche!

  • shamlet May 21, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    One thought about pro-Russian issues: If the South Brooklyn congressional seat that should exist did, it would likely have a very significant Russian population (I’m guessing at least around 20%). Would being pro-Russian help there or is the expat community very anti-Putin?


    R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

    • Son_of_the_South May 21, 2017 at 8:25 pm

      This is just an anecdote, but the one Russian from South Brooklyn that I know is ambivalent-to-positive on Putin.


      23, R, TN-08
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • fzw May 22, 2017 at 1:04 am

      Interesting question-I have no idea. But to a related point, won’t Donovan’s district be forced to either swallow this area in redistricting? Either that or it will have to eat up more of the Brooklyn Shore along New York Harbor, which would destroy any Republican chances of winning the district unless they ran up insane 40+ point margins on Staten Island, which even Donovan hasn’t ever done in any of his races.


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

    Leave a Reply