Better than salt money

Work like you were living in the early days of a better nation


Leave a comment

Gerrymandering: Surprises lurk in the shadows

 

The House is, for all that every member is up for re-election every two years, not likely to flip to Democratic control any sooner than 2022, and probably not even then. The reason is simple, the party in power gets to stack the deck every time the census comes around. Gerrymandering doesn’t have to happen, the politicians do it that way to prevent random cases of democracy breaking out.

But there is no way to gerrymander the senate. Each state gets two senators, and they are elected at large. There is not way to rig the game to make sure one side isn’t given a fair chance to win.

The clearest example I know of is California.

 

Calif voting record

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California is, by the numbers, a fairly blue state. 2/3rds of her voters voted for Obama.  What does her House delegation look like? These days it’s pretty close to those numbers; prior to the passage of Prop. 20, in 2008, that wasn’t the case.

What does that mean for the next president (who needs to have some support, somewhere, if anything productive is going to happen)?  That, as they say, depends. Incumbency is a pretty powerful thing. Lots of people say “turn the bums out”, but when pressed think their bum is ok.  I remember, some years back, being at a party. It was a party full of Quakers. Of liberal Quakers. Liberal Quakers who had David Dreier as their Representative.

The host of the party, a moderately liberal Quaker, had a David Dreier yard sign, in 2002. When asked why he said, “He’s done good things for Monrovia”.  That’s the power of incumbency.

But, lots of states have so gerrymandered their House districts that the Senate is at greater risk. Looking at the House Delegations (and remembering incumbency) seats look safer than they are.  But years of being disenfrachised, on the one hand, and the present level of disarray in the Republican Party had already put some Senate seats in moderate play.

Then Scalia died. The level of obdurate, obviously partisan, obstructionism the Senate got a huge spotlight.  The Senate, you see is supposed to be above that sort of thing (not that they have been for, at least 20 years) but before this they could appeal to the “Senate’s tradition of bipartisanship” and folks would believe it.  The real problem is there was a bout of this a few years ago, which was resolved with the “Gang of 14” who were supposed to see to it that, so long as no “extreme” judges were nominated, there would be “up or down votes” on nominees.

That failed. It very quickly became obvious that the definition of “Extreme” was anything to the left of Roberts.

But the public could ignore than when it was Federal judges being stymied. The crises at the district (and circuit) levels isn’t that visible to most people. The one time they pay attention to the recommendations of the Senate Judicial Committees is when there is a Supreme Court nominee.

Which couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Republican Party.

Because the question of who gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court is usually theoretical. It’s something policy wonks worry about, but most people don’t watch the court closely enough to consider it. They see nominations as random. They don’t look at actuarial tables and wonder who is likely to die.  This year it’s right there, in the open.  And those blue states with Red Senators… suddenly have a big reminder of how much their vote matters.

 


Leave a comment

He’s not a dove, he’s not a hawk: Trump’s a thug

A couple of weeks ago Salon had a piece up saying we need to consider Trump’s foreign policy ideas because they were “better than Hillary’s”†

In the first place it’s not true. The keystone of this is the idea Trump opposed The Iraq War in 2003. He didn’t. He opposed the way it was run, but he didn’t think it was a bad idea. It was, in fact, perfectly in line with his way of thinking. Soup to nuts.  He never has had any grasp of how the world works. His ideas about diplomacy are little more developed than that of a mid-level mob-capo trying to keep three blocks of Little Italy paying his bag men every Friday.

Even earlier, when it was rumored he was thinking of trying to run against GHWB for the 1988 race, he ran an “open letter to the American People” he was willing to spent almost $100,000 (which was a lot more money back then) to say,

It’s time for us to end our vast deficits by making Japan, and other who can afford it, pay. Our world protection is worth hundreds of billions of billion of dollars to these countries and their stake in their protection is far greater than ours…

Make Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others pay for the protection we extend as allies. Let’s help our farmers, our sick, our homeless by taking from some of the greatest profit machines ever created — machines created and nutured by us.  ‘Tax’ these wealthy nations, not America. End our huge deficits, reduce our taxes, and let America’s economy grow unencumbered by the cost of defending those who can easily afford to pay us for the defense of their freedom.  Let’s not let our great country be laughed at anymore.

In 1988, two years before Desert Storm he said we should be squeezing Kuwait for 25 percent of their oil revenues because, they couldn’t sell any oil without us.  That’s, to be polite, a hegemonic imperialism. To use plain-language, over the circumlocutions of diplomacy… his view of foreign policy is, “nice little economy you got here, be a shame if anything was to happen to it”.

He’s talked about assassinating leaders he doesn’t like.

When it comes to domestic policy… The reason Putin likes him is Trump thinks China was too restrained when the machined-gunned students protesting in Tiananmen.

When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.

This is in keeping with his rhetoric about protestors at his rallies, where he says things about how in the past they would have been leaving on stretchers.

This is not a person who is, in contrast to anyone the Democrats have entertained as a candidate can be called any sort of “less adventuresome”.  Trump doesn’t have a specific country he want’s to invade.  No, he thinks he can threaten our “enemies”, bully our neighbors (Mexico is not paying for a wall), and extort our “allies”.

He’s no dove. He’s not a hawk. He’s a toddler, who wants you to think it’s reasonable to give him a sawed-off shotgun, with a hair trigger.

†Salon is a confused mess; there are often good stories, but since it’s both a place of original content, and a content farm repackaging things from other places, married to a clickbait site recycling things with lurid/sensational headlines it’s impossible to say they have any coherent stand on things. The New Republic may be fetid swill, but at least they have a coherent band of thinking.

The best example I can think of to show this editorial instability is the way they deal with the Daily Show since Trevor Noah took over. It’s been a mix of “Noah is killing it” and “OMG the Daily Show has been ruined by this inept poser who doesn’t really understand politics, humor, nor the need to go for the throat, woe is us!”.  Often in the same sidebar.