Octopus Overlords

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:57 pm I think the cost for this should be so high that if I don't see an effect in 2022 turnout - I'll need to write this country off as toast for the next 20-30 years.

These rights were hard-won and that was done at a time when it wasn't likely to win and people could be forgiven for thinking there was no other way to live.

Now they think they can go back 50 years and just expect everyone that if here in the present to just 'take the hit' and sorta shrug it off in a couple of months. To me, that is looney. If that happens here, then - yeah, the country is going to come undone I think.

The thing is that you also have to factor in that in our political system national public opinion for the most part does not matter. The only nationally elected office is president, and even that gets filtered through the distortive effects of the electoral college (which is, you know, responsible for Trump's election in the first place). So if the Roe decision gives Democrats a 10 point bump (which would be massive) in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, etc., then none of that matters at all in terms of election results.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:30 pm The thing is that you also have to factor in that in our political system national public opinion for the most part does not matter. The only nationally elected office is president, and even that gets filtered through the distortive effects of the electoral college (which is, you know, responsible for Trump's election in the first place). So if the Roe decision gives Democrats a 10 point bump (which would be massive) in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, etc., then none of that matters at all in terms of election results.

But that's not really where I would hope (or want) to see the <real> bump at all. I'm certainly not speaking to the national aggregate here either so that it doesn't matter is fine.

While those places may well see a bump (L.A. Chicago, etc) - they are in places that already have in place (or plan to) laws that will protect them (for now)... so I'm not speaking to that element.

I'm speaking (for example) about the women in Louisiana that, like so many people, mostly thought this was a Right that would just be argued about -- but not be removed. They will (before November) suddenly be faced with the reality that it's now actually totally gone for them.

And not just 'women-rights' people: As the wording in some of the written opinions: "There are more we should correct" (not a quote) - they felt confident to also poke at the bees nest that is racial segregation in schools and same-sex marriage, and a few others. I just have to believe this will grab the attention of people (at a Red State level) that used to think their comforter in bed was tucked in nice and tight - now that it's been completely yanked off them. It should be a good way to get someone to wake up that was previously ok to sleep the day away.

So, in some places like LA, OK, or AL, we could actually see some significant erosion - and in places like GA, FL, MI, WI - I would like to see it strongly move away from 'battle ground' and move strongly into "ground won".

I'm sure I'm dreaming. But please - don't wake me up for a little while, I'm fucking exhausted.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:18 pm I am having a hard time imagining the "blue wave" everyone is talking about.

I'm having a hard time imagining who in the world is even talking like that, unless you might be referring to some right wing element that's playing 4-d chess and spreading propaganda that things are going great for Team Blue in this country? "Everything is fiiiiiine. Go back to sleeeep. No need to panic. We've been here before...just relax....no need to vote either, by the way!"

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:57 pm I think the cost for this should be so high that if I don't see an effect in 2022 turnout - I'll need to write this country off as toast for the next 20-30 years.

If there is no impact from what's happened, it will have told the people responsible that they're free to act as they choose. That opens the floodgates, and once that happens... Well, I don't see 20-30 years fixing it.

I'm having a hard time imagining who in the world is even talking like that

I guess it's all the usual suspects saying "Oh, we've gone too far - we've touched the 3rd rail and overturned Roe v Wade and there will be consequences..."

I want to believe it. I want to believe people that have been sitting on the sidelines or that haven't felt a connection to anything political are now galvanized because holy shit, they just declared all women "less than" in terms of previously established rights and this potentially opens the door to so many other problems as our country backslides into chaos.

But yes, as Unagi pointed out if this doesn't motivate people to vote against the GOP at all levels, or worse, if this somehow motivates more people to vote GOP because the average American feels comfortable under this type of societal arrangement, then yeah, get me the hell outta here.

Not all of that 50%+ of the population is of child-bearing age. Not all of those who are child-bearing think an unexpected pregnancy will happen to them. Not everyone affected will speak up and make this their single voting issue. Many will not speak up out of shame or religious belief or cultural pressure.

If COVID has taught us anything, it’s that we Americans are terrible at understanding risks or empathy.

If the Republican Party has taught us anything, it’s that the extremists have taken over, facts don’t matter and they’ll abuse power.

BUT this is going to catch many people’s attention that the Republican face eating leopards are coming for them.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:04 pm

I'm having a hard time imagining who in the world is even talking like that

I guess it's all the usual suspects saying "Oh, we've gone too far - we've touched the 3rd rail and overturned Roe v Wade and there will be consequences..."

I want to believe it. I want to believe people that have been sitting on the sidelines or that haven't felt a connection to anything political are now galvanized because holy shit, they just declared all women "less than" in terms of previously established rights and this potentially opens the door to so many other problems as our country backslides into chaos.

But yes, as Unagi pointed out if this doesn't motivate people to vote against the GOP at all levels, or worse, if this somehow motivates more people to vote GOP because the average American feels comfortable under this type of societal arrangement, then yeah, get me the hell outta here.

Just bear in mind that we're not starting from a baseline of zero. There are a lot of factors (general trend for voters to vote against the president's party in the mid-terms, economic disruption from inflation / Russia shocks / etc.) that will give the GOP a headwind. Plus various structural factors (gerrymandering, the structure of the Senate) that favor the GOP further.

So let's say for example that various factors combine to give the GOP a 6% voting advantage. Let's say Roe v. Wade and other SCOTUS shenanigans really motivate Democrats and swing voters and things shift to a 1% GOP voting advantage (which would be a *massive* shift from one issue). That would still result in a 1% GOP advantage, which given how our political structure is probably enough for the GOP to take the House and have a decent chance to take the Senate.

So we can't judge from the electoral outcome whether this will have had a big impact or not. And given what Democrats are currently facing, there's 0% chance of anything that could be termed a 'blue wave' no matter how pissed off people get.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:28 pm BUT this is going to catch many people’s attention that the Republican face eating leopards are coming for them.

Would that you were right. I guess I've hit despair.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:58 pm And given what Democrats are currently facing, there's 0% chance of anything that could be termed a 'blue wave' no matter how pissed off people get.

If it's even enough to turn the red tsunami into red ripple, that will be at least a Pyrrhic victory for the Dems.

A lot of folks want a religious America…until they realize they’re really getting a religious America.

This is the only thing that gives me hope right now.

Looks like at least 3 seats are being gifted to the GOP by our robed tyrants. The issue at hand is that the district courts conducted fact finding and issued rulings based on the evidence and prevailing law. SCOTUS tramples on their judgement, assumes they are wrong, and then put their thumb on the scale to deliver political victory for their party. Worse it indicates the tyrants are going to finally kill the VRA entirely when they rule on Merrill next session.

538 mid-term model is out

Gives the GOP an 87% chance of taking the House, and a 55% chance of taking the Senate, as of now.

I think the model appears to be a relatively fair read. However things are so wacky I have to wonder if anyone can be accurate at this point. We're off the map politically.

Walker is down 10 points in the one poll I saw for Georgia. I would love to see a ton of Trump's picks get steam rolled, but based on the last 6 years my hopes aren't super high. losing the house and keeping the Senate would at least prevent them from tossing the 2024 election. Yay?

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:46 am I think the model appears to be a relatively fair read. However things are so wacky I have to wonder if anyone can be accurate at this point. We're off the map politically.

Yeah, there's definitely stuff that's hard to model reliably (e.g., Roe, the looming end of democracy). So you figure the tail risks are slightly more probable than they would be in a "normal" environment. But it's about where I think things are now, anyway.

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:56 pm Walker is down 10 points in the one poll I saw for Georgia. I would love to see a ton of Trump's picks get steam rolled, but based on the last 6 years my hopes aren't super high. losing the house and keeping the Senate would at least prevent them from tossing the 2024 election. Yay?

FWIW the Congress that would be debating whether or not to end democracy would be the Congress elected in 2024. So even if the Democrats hold the Senate in 2022, they would also have to hold it in 2024 in order to take tossing electors off the table.

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:56 pm Walker is down 10 points in the one poll I saw for Georgia. I would love to see a ton of Trump's picks get steam rolled, but based on the last 6 years my hopes aren't super high. losing the house and keeping the Senate would at least prevent them from tossing the 2024 election. Yay?

Not necessarily. A new Congress sits before the electoral vote count and Presidential swearing in. The balance in 2024 will be determined for this purpose in Nov 23 as well.

Well crap.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:24 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:46 am I think the model appears to be a relatively fair read. However things are so wacky I have to wonder if anyone can be accurate at this point. We're off the map politically.

Yeah, there's definitely stuff that's hard to model reliably (e.g., Roe, the looming end of democracy). So you figure the tail risks are slightly more probable than they would be in a "normal" environment. But it's about where I think things are now, anyway.

The 1/6 committee has a few more hearings to air, and presumably some more bombs to drop. Odds are they send multiple recommendations for prosecution to the DOJ by the end of the summer. What the DOJ does about that before November is a wild card. Conventional wisdom says Garland has to act before trump announces his candidacy, which will probably happen soon after the midterms.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:53 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:24 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:46 am I think the model appears to be a relatively fair read. However things are so wacky I have to wonder if anyone can be accurate at this point. We're off the map politically.

Yeah, there's definitely stuff that's hard to model reliably (e.g., Roe, the looming end of democracy). So you figure the tail risks are slightly more probable than they would be in a "normal" environment. But it's about where I think things are now, anyway.

The 1/6 committee has a few more hearings to air, and presumably some more bombs to drop. Odds are they send multiple recommendations for prosecution to the DOJ by the end of the summer. What the DOJ does about that before November is a wild card. Conventional wisdom says Garland has to act before trump announces his candidacy, which will probably happen soon after the midterms.

Honestly I think there's a 1% chance of an indictment of Trump before November (partly because I still doubt that Garland has the stones to go after Trump at all). It is more plausible that there could be an indictment of someone else senior in Trump World (Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, etc.). What the impact of such a case would be politically...who knows.

If we're engaging in fantasy, let's imagine a world where they indict sitting members of Congress, forcing their removal over involvement in 1/6. That would certainly have the potential to change things. I feel like there's a greater chance of that than charging Trump, but who knows anymore.

Also, I submit that "conventional wisdom" is currently out the window.

The wild card is GA. The Fulton Co. DA might do Garland's job. For all we know he might be waiting to see if they'll get him off the hook.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:16 pm Also, I submit that "conventional wisdom" is currently out the window.

Yeah "current consensus" is more like it. Bringing criminal charges against a former president is a huge deal. Bringing those same charges against a declared candidate who's also a former president is an even bigger deal. But overlooking a conspiracy to overturn an election is even bigger than that, IMO.

It's hard to say what Garland will do if confronted with multiple referrals from a bipartisan commission based mainly on Republican testimony. That's some good cover against the appearance of a partisan witch hunt, which is supposedly Garland's biggest objection.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:08 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:53 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:24 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:46 am I think the model appears to be a relatively fair read. However things are so wacky I have to wonder if anyone can be accurate at this point. We're off the map politically.

Yeah, there's definitely stuff that's hard to model reliably (e.g., Roe, the looming end of democracy). So you figure the tail risks are slightly more probable than they would be in a "normal" environment. But it's about where I think things are now, anyway.

The 1/6 committee has a few more hearings to air, and presumably some more bombs to drop. Odds are they send multiple recommendations for prosecution to the DOJ by the end of the summer. What the DOJ does about that before November is a wild card. Conventional wisdom says Garland has to act before trump announces his candidacy, which will probably happen soon after the midterms.

Honestly I think there's a 1% chance of an indictment of Trump before November (partly because I still doubt that Garland has the stones to go after Trump at all). It is more plausible that there could be an indictment of someone else senior in Trump World (Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, etc.). What the impact of such a case would be politically...who knows.

Depends on if Trump could be compelled to testify in any of those cases.

Kraken wrote:That's some good cover against the appearance of a partisan witch hunt, which is supposedly Garland's biggest objection.

That right there pretty much sums up the problem with the Democratic party. Who the heck cares if it gives the appearance of a partisan witch hunt? The GOP certainly doesn't care about appearing partisan, and it's worked pretty damn well for them.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:21 pm

Kraken wrote:That's some good cover against the appearance of a partisan witch hunt, which is supposedly Garland's biggest objection.

That right there pretty much sums up the problem with the Democratic party. Who the heck cares if it gives the appearance of a partisan witch hunt? The GOP certainly doesn't care about appearing partisan, and it's worked pretty damn well for them.

It also has the problem that it is bullshit. It looks partisan and weak if he has mountains of evidence and they do nothing. It also gives credence to the sense common amongst many citizens that our institutions are corrupt and the elite are just going to do whatever they want anyway. It isn't hard to draw a line to the idea that many folks think this country isn't worth fighting for.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:01 pm But overlooking a conspiracy to overturn an election is even bigger than that, IMO.

this

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:13 pm If we're engaging in fantasy, let's imagine a world where they indict sitting members of Congress, forcing their removal over involvement in 1/6. That would certainly have the potential to change things. I feel like there's a greater chance of that than charging Trump, but who knows anymore.

It's hard to imagine that the people who elected (and will re-elect) Boebert/MTG/Gaetz/Jordan/etc would replace them with candidates less radical and less prone to political crime. If anything, they will push harder towards authoritarian assholery.

If memes = votes, Fetterman is going to sail to victory.

Fetterman is the hero we need AND want.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:44 pm Fetterman is the hero we need AND want.

...and yes, in that way.

I assume everyone has seen the video of GA GOP senate candidate Herschel Walker declaring that (to paraphrase) America has the cleanest air and if we clean it further then China will get it and send us their bad air and we'll have to clean THAT.

This is his environmental policy.

Without checking, I assume Walker has already declared that he won't participate in debates? Warnock would demolish him.

It's probably too early for polls but Warnock was only like ~2% ahead of him in the last week. Not sure if his bold stance on air manufacturing (?) will make it even closer.

Warnock needs to stop pussyfooting around the subject and tackle Chinese air theft!

You all laugh now, but this is an actual photo taken of something under construction in the space above China:

I strongly suspect the sadist who writes this twisted simulation has already decided Walker needs to win. And is loving all the Spaceball references to boot.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 6:00 pm I assume everyone has seen the video of GA GOP senate candidate Herschel Walker declaring that (to paraphrase) America has the cleanest air and if we clean it further then China will get it and send us their bad air and we'll have to clean THAT.

This is his environmental policy.

Without checking, I assume Walker has already declared that he won't participate in debates? Warnock would demolish him.

Late to watching that clip of Walker talking about China stealing our good air. I'd like to say I'm shocked by that level of idiocy from a GOP Senate nominee, but . . . seems like MOTS at this point.

The thing that made an impression on me, though, was the nationalistic stupidity of the audience. These people have undoubtedly voted against and detest most, if not all, environmental regulation. They most likely would love to have the EPA dismantled. Yet, when Walker leads off his comments talking about how the United States has, by far, the cleanest air and water in the world, they explode in nationalistic applause.

I wanted to scream at my screen, "Hey, Dummies. You know American air and water didn't get cleaned up by themselves, right?"

It's like they think that having an advanced industrialized society with clean(er) air and water are inevitable offshoots of American exceptionalism.

Maybe FREEDOM made our air and water clean? Some mornings, I just can't deal.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:13 pm If we're engaging in fantasy, let's imagine a world where they indict sitting members of Congress, forcing their removal over involvement in 1/6. That would certainly have the potential to change things. I feel like there's a greater chance of that than charging Trump, but who knows anymore.

Thats what I've been arguing for this whole time.