Would love to see everyone hop off the Gallego train. He won, which is most important. But from a percentage perspective Mark Kelly won a higher percentage in a Democratic midterm. Both faced bad Republican opponents.
Gallego was polling over 10 points above Lake consistently and ended up with just 50% of the vote.
Hardly the Fetterman-style win that would signal a wider messaging strategy.
Gallego is a very awkward presence and is an uninspiring speaker.
Keep him in the Senate and stop trying to make him the next Democratic messiah.
Gina, it sounds like you haven’t yet read the article. There is absolutely nothing in it that tries to elevate Gallego as "the next Democratic messiah"! (your phrase)
Jennifer Rubin offers an informative nuts-and-bolts description of Ruben Gallego’s messaging and what he did to win. In my opinion, that is very interesting.
As for Mark Kelly, he won a special election during far less challenging times.
I'm not saying you or the article did elevate him, but I've read endless comments here since the election jumping on his bandwagon.
If the election taught us one thing it's that just because Gallego is a Hispanic man who won a senate seat we shouldn't run based off of demographics. Watch his debate with Lake. He was not great.
Sorry if it came off as my takeaway from that article. But the Downballot is notorious for literalism. I am referencing past comments, not yours. Sorry for the confusion.
I think it's important that when on The Downballot that you should not take comments that anyone says about Gallego "winning because he's Latino" literally as full analysis. Not everyone here is a political analyst. We all have different trains of thought and know certain things here and there based on what we read at a given time.
No one here is arguing Gallego is a messiah. When I'm arguing that he's in the same boat as Senator John Fetterman, it's that Gallego is in fact being blunt and truthful while at the same time running his own Senate campaign in a state that Trump won. Both he and Fetterman happen to be Democrats who are in fact talking about bread and butter issues that matter instead of trying to be like Gavin Newsom and others who want to be "hip in the crowd" and go for headlines. It's more that more of these Democrats can get elected in states like AZ and PA. There are voters who like politicians like Gallego and Fetterman instead of ones who always try to polish their speeches.
Also, Fetterman didn't win by a large margin as well in his Senate race. Dr. Oz, like Kari Lake, was also a very flawed candidate. However, Fetterman won the Senate election by just 4.92% points. It may be in this current political environment that these margins may have to do for now in Senate elections in states like AZ and PA.
FYI, how a candidate is at a debate isn't always full-proof of the campaign being run.
I'm not on the train but don't see any reason to discount his win based on what you said.
1) He won which is most important.
2) Kelly won his first election to the senate in 2020 (51.2-48.8 2.4%) against a bad opponent who was just rejected two years ago while Biden was winning the state. Gallego won by the exact same margin (50.1-47.7 2.4%) While Trump was winning the state by more than five.
3) Shapiro winning by double digits likely helped Fetterman win by more.
4) Gallego was facing stronger head winds than Baldwin, Casey, Rosen or Slotkin and won by more than all of them.
5) Speaking style is subjective. Trump to me sounds like an alcoholic/dementia patient grandfather who constantly lies and blames everyone else for his personal failings but people apparently find some charisma in that.
I don't want to delve into primary talk but in terms of his win I think he should be considered as much as anyone else who wants to run that year.
you should look at the whole board; the fact that Gallego actually won in that state in the environment he ran in is extremely impressive; Lake or no Lake(not discussing Kelly at all here; clearly, if Kelly runs in 2028, Gallego would most likely wait)
For years, Republicans have been professing concern about the national debt – and, during every budget negotiation, Republican legislators have used their unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the Democrats.
Trump and Musk have not only blown up the negotiated short-term budget that was ready to quickly pass...
Now suddenly Trump demands Congress *eliminate* the debt ceiling?? This is an alarming signal that he has some very bad plans for America’s economy – and for your economy and my economy.
I mean we should, objectively, dispense with (or at least greatly reform) the function of the debt ceiling. Just not for the reasons that Trump probably wants to
Agreed! Context matters. During his single term, Trump accrued 25% of the nation’s debt, much of it due to tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy – unsupported tax cuts that had to be financed by loans!
Democrats now have an opportunity to use the debt ceiling against Trump and Republican legislators. This is definitely NOT the time to eliminate it.
Dems aren't going to hold the debt ceiling hostage over tax cuts because a) The politics are awful and b) They aren't saboteurs willing to hurt the most vulnerable over politics like the GOP is.
The debt ceiling is a weapon only valuable to one side. If they're willing to toss it overboard, help them do it.
Dems should sign on to a permanent repeal of the debt ceiling, which serves no useful purpose and only allows bad actors to make mischief. That said, if Trump proposes 'repealing' it only through 2028, Dems should not play ball. Let the Rs beat each other up.
As expected, he could give a shit about spending (I think the bromance between Musk, who wants a Milei-style destructor, and Trump will end sooner than later) but it has the 2 year debt ceiling extender. Freedom Caucus-types are already balking (with Trump calling on a primary of Chip Roy lol)
Jefferies is saying no, but if I were him I'd say kill it permanently and enough of the caucus will push it through.
"Milei’s severe spending cuts have hit the poor hard. Statistics show that for the first half of this year, almost 53% of Argentina’s 45 million people were living in poverty – a two-decade high – up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023. Some 18% of people were living in extreme poverty, while more than six out of 10 of under-14s lived below the poverty line."
A year into Javier Milei's presidency, Argentina's poverty hits a new high
"For nearly 40 years, Argentina’s poverty level had consistently hovered above 25 percent. But since the far-right Milei took office on December 10, 2023, that figure has skyrocketed.
"Over the last year, the poverty rate reached nearly 53 percent. That is the highest level in 20 years, according to a research team at the Argentine Catholic University (UCA) that has kept track of key economic indicators."
I assume Dems will send back a counteroffer to see how much the GOP is willing to give up. Permanent repeal could be one proposal which IMO should be enough to get most Dems to support it. If the GOP won't take that, there could be other conditions.
I mean, eliminating the invented debt ceiling has been a Dem wishlist item for years; if he somehow manages to get the GOP on board over the next two days on a Clean CR and axing the debt ceiling Dems would be fools not to follow suit. That all said I highly highly doubt that happens and think we're in for a protracted shutdown for what will be the dumbest reason in history.
I also find it hilarious that so many Trump voting but non-MAGA Rs convinced themselves that Trump and Musk were going to do some grand vision entitlement reform next Congress . . .ha! Trump's going to explode the deficit like all GOP Presidents do (and like he did the first time around), and the "Fiscal Hawks" will just have to eat it. Because any actual debt management requires action on mandatory spending accounts; you could cut 80% of discretionary spending and it would make little difference (besides sending the economy into a depression, thus making deficits worse).
Debt management requires making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share – for instance by bringing back Reagan Era tax rates. The current myopic focus on cost-cutting is unproductive. The revenue side of the equation is far more important.
I'm all for raising taxes on the wealthy but demographic realities will require the developed world to make structural reforms (I'm not talking slashing services) to retirement programs in the next quarter century. The more countries restrict immigration, the sooner the bill will be due.
The double-edged sword there is that immigration accelerates Medicaid enrollment. Check out, once again, Springfield, Ohio, where the spike of Haitian migrants from Biden's backdoor guest-worker program was nearly directly proportional to the explosion of Medicaid enrollees in Clark County as taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the cheap labor hired at the very jobs that were government-subsidized in the first place. Don't expect this to be an isolated incident, and it's the latest reminder to me that the credits and debits ledger as far as immigration and entitlements is concerned isn't as lopsided as we're led to believe, especially if immigration is weaponized to consolidate wealth for oligarchs as Biden assisted with in Springfield.
It's Medicare and exploding end of life costs for an aging population that are most sending the U.S. to a fiscal cliff, not Medicaid.
I'd be curious to know what in your view was an alternative pathway to growth that existed for Springfield absent immigration. I'm quite familiar with towns that have followed the trajectory of Springfield; their options are basically always a) Reinvent itself as a tourist hub (not always possible) b) Attract a bunch of immigrants.
Occasionally a new manufacturing facility is option 3, but that's often more luck than anything the town did to attract them (and pickings are slim).
Given that Medicare and Medicaid can't and won't survive without each other, I don't think we can dismiss the connection between low-wage employers dumping their employees onto Medicaid and the pending entitlement crisis.
The Springfield situation is Exhibit A of the risk for immigration done disastrously wrong. We've bequeathed their employers both the labor supply, through a work permit gimmick, and their compensation package by allowing them to dump said guest workers onto the Medicaid rolls. It's unsustainable both politically and financially, but I got no sense from Biden or the Democrats that they saw a problem with it.
I don't dispute your premise that more immigration will be needed to prop up both economic growth and entitlement financing, but we needed to foster a culture where the public's intuitive skepticism about immigration could be minimized to accomplish the needed political environment to pull that off. Instead, we spent three years pretending there was nothing we could do to stop 10 million people from crossing the border and then slipped in a backdoor guest-worker program to funnel refugees into manufacturing jobs that pay so low that their workers are all signing up for Medicaid.....even as American citizens are told Medicaid is approaching bankruptcy. It's hard to imagine a more perfect blueprint to destroy our chances at winning over the public on immigration.
The debt ceiling has realistically only ever been used against us in the modern era. Republicans consistently use it during dem presidencies to get some policy concessions, while democrats are largely unwilling to return the favor. Not to mention that it's simply bad policy — there's a reason that our peers in the global economy are not replicating it in their own governance.
If our opponents want to get rid of the debt ceiling we should get on board. It will help us so much more than it will help them.
From what I am reading, there is talk of "temporarily" scrapping the debt ceiling – for instance, for the next two years. If so, it would be back in place by the time the next president, who might well be a Democrat, is sworn in in 2029.
Interesting interview with the Trump campaign team. They were feeling confident about winning the popular vote nearly two weeks out.
Interviewer points out that Trumps closing in the last two weeks was what made Dems feel confident themselves.
They responded that the people left on the sidelines at that point were people tuned out to mainstream news.
They also say Harris' initial wave receded like a tide. They give the opinion that she closed badly with too many messages.
"Because they just didn’t really have a coherent message. And they changed. I mean, one of the untold stories of this race — perfect example, last week of the campaign. They ran 162 different unique creatives on digital, TV"
They also believed from the start that persuadable voters were a much higher share of the electorate than the Harris campaign.
"We’re focusing on the group of persuadable voters and a group of low propensity voters. It’s two different tacks. Low propensity: Get them to vote. Persuadable: Try to get them over. The Harris campaign was convinced [persuadables were] around 4 to 6 percent. We knew it was probably closer to 10 to 12 percent. We focused the entire campaign built around the issues that matter to the persuadable voters early. Tony modeled them, and we tracked what the electorate, based on the persuadables, was thinking. And that drove all of our decision making. All of our decision making. We spent millions in mail in the summer, which we were roundly criticized for doing. All of this stuff was something that we started in June."
Another anecdote: Michelle Obama was the strongest tested Biden alternative that the Trump team modeled against.
On Trump's media ploys toward the end of the campaign, they were deliberate:
"Where she’s doing the big speech or having the big debate, the conventional warfare, traditional campaign tactics. Donald Trump goes to the McDonald’s drive-through. But in the year 2024, when we’re all living on our phones, a big speech at the Ellipse vs. Trump at the drive-through, which is going to break through?"
I mean it’s mostly bullshit. They gambled and it paid off b/c enough people bought the nonsense about prices and their outside money guy ran ratfuck campaigns to keep prior Biden voters home. Neither trump’s people were as brilliant as they and Politico claim nor where Harris’ staff as incompetent as many here (and Politico) claim. It was much more about the fallout from global pandemic economy and good ole’ misogyny and racism.
I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.
The media always treats a winning campaign as total geniuses and a losing campaign as being flawed from the start. The truth is more nuanced and complex.
As Carville or someone from Clinton's campaign said, "it's the economy, stupid". Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs was not brilliant, it was a sideshow.
Wasn't really a gamble. The American people wanted to hear about fixes for the economy and the border and Democrats wanted to talk about reproductive rights and January 6, 2021. Hard to imagine a scenario where the opposition party doesn't win in that circumstance.
Michelle Obama lost me with her scolding message to male voters that they were insufficiently deferential to women's priorities. Talk about the worst possible thing to say to a demographic that already feels disconnected from your party/candidate's message. If she brought that messaging instinct to the campaign trail, she definitely wouldn't have been our salvation.
Longtime Fox “News” and Fox “Business” fixture Neil Cavuto is leaving both stations at the end of the year. Cavuto joined FNC at its 1996 founding and was one of the founding faces of FBN.
Cavuto was a stalwart economic conservative; however, during the Trump years, he was one of the very few voices over at Fox that was at least semi-critical of Donald Trump.
Massive explosions at Russian military base near Murmansk
I am seeing this story on numerous Norwegian news sites, but it’s not yet widely reported in the English-speaking press, with the exception of the niche website The Barents Observer.
The explosions took place Wednesday near the HQ of Russia's Northern Fleet, more specifically at the Severomorsk-1 naval base. This base has considerable weapons and munitions depots, fuel storage facilities, and a naval airport. The explosions happened on Wednesday afternoon between 2:24 and 2:27pm UTC. Some observers believe the explosions happened in the air above the base.
No word yet on the damage, or whether this is an accident or possible Ukrainian sabotage or attack.
they are extremely impressive in this game(the hit on the General the other day was a masterpiece); not saying it was them but it would not surprise me
I imagine it will get “slightly less dramatic” every year from here until 2030; the Census’ record in terms of projecting forward is iffy, and the 2020-22 COVID years has thrown a fair bit off
Probably just rounding. MN and WI could grow faster than MI and lose seats if they were just on the cusp of losing one in 2020 and MI nearly kept the seat it lost.
All the more reason to rid ourselves of the relic that is the Electoral College. I'm glad that state level Dems seem to mostly have their priorities right on this. Now if only we could expand the House and remove the ridiculous arbitrary cap that's been around since 1929. Too many antiquated relics to abolish and phase out, including many of our politicians.
The cap is more likely to be repealed if we start dominating in all the large states again. Abolition of the Electoral College and US Senate are MUCH less likely. Especially since the former favors swing states and the latter favors small states.
Indeed. The British House of Commons has more than 200 additional MPs and the UK is only roughly one fifth of our population. Absolutely absurd to limit ourselves to 435 US House Members.
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Going forward, ABC News will have a “zero tolerance policy for news,” the CEO of parent company Disney said at an all-hands meeting on Thursday.
“In recent days, I’ve heard troubling reports of ABC News employees recklessly dabbling in news,” Bob Iger told the gathering at ABC’s Manhattan headquarters. “This ends now.”
Declaring ABC News “a news-free zone,” he said, “If you find yourself tempted to do news, I want you to ask yourself: is it worth risking your career?”
Iger’s anti-news policy, however, drew a harsh rebuke from Fox News Channel, who claimed that ABC was infringing on its brand.
After Co-Presidents Musk & Trump killed the budget deal that was essentially done, Johnson & Co have been forced to come up with an alternative – without, of course, trying to talk to the Democrats. Which will make this very, very hard to push through the House.
One of the few cost saving measures in the original bill was PBM reform. But thanks to the lobbying efforts of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (and perhaps their campaign donations), that proposed reform has now been axed.
Link to Jake Sherman, founding Editor of Punchbowl News:
Speaker Johnson will hold the House vote on the new Republican bill under a so-called "suspension of the rules", meaning it will require a two-thirds majority – in other words a helluva lot of Democratic votes. But with Johnson & co walking back from a done deal, and not doing anything to meed Democratic concerns, he’s not giving Dems much incentive to vote for it.
When it in all likelihood fails tonight, the bill goes back to the Rules Committee. IF and only if the Rules Committee, approves, a second vote House vote will be held, this time requiring only a simple majority.
If Democrats stand united and refuse to lend a helping hand, Johnson & Co will be in real trouble. A growing number of Republicans have already said they’ll vote NO. Amongst them: Bob Goode, Andy Ogles, Ralph Norman and Chip Roy.
Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries is astutely referring to this as the "Trump-Musk-Johnson Bill". One thing is for sure, those three will own the unfolding chaos that we’re soon likely to see – as well as the government shutdown that may follow the Republican inability to get this done.
BREAKING: TRUMP-BACKED CR FAILS THE HOUSE .... 174-235-1
A stunning 38 Republicans ignored Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson and voted no. The bill was considered under a fast-track method that required 2/3 for passage. Not only did it not get 2/3. It didn't even clear 218, a simple majority.
An inauspicious start to Trump's reemergence into the legislating world.
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) voted Present. Along with Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) who voted Yes, only three Democrats failed to vote with their party leader.
Whereas a stunning 38 Republicans broke with the clearly expressed wishes of President-Elect Trump and Speaker Johnson. I’d say Trump is off to a very, very bad start!
I missed this one and assume it was a terrible oversight but yeah with Shapiro on this one. Yes there wasn't much on the sentence left and he was already in home confinement but still pisses me off.
"Biden's decision to commute the 17-year prison sentence of Michael Conahan angered many in northeastern Pennsylvania, from the governor to the families whose children were victimized by the disgraced former judge. Conahan had already served the vast majority of his sentence, which was handed down in 2011.
“I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely wrong and created a lot of pain here in northeastern Pennsylvania,” Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said during an unrelated news conference in Scranton on Friday."
Jennifer Rubin has an interesting article on Senator-elect Ruben Gallego in today’s edition of the Washington Post.
. I talked to Ruben Gallego. Democrats should listen to him.
"How did Gallego beat the Senate odds in a tough swing state? With a few good practices."
Gift link to article:
https://wapo.st/3ZITPEu
Would love to see everyone hop off the Gallego train. He won, which is most important. But from a percentage perspective Mark Kelly won a higher percentage in a Democratic midterm. Both faced bad Republican opponents.
Gallego was polling over 10 points above Lake consistently and ended up with just 50% of the vote.
Hardly the Fetterman-style win that would signal a wider messaging strategy.
Gallego is a very awkward presence and is an uninspiring speaker.
Keep him in the Senate and stop trying to make him the next Democratic messiah.
Gina, it sounds like you haven’t yet read the article. There is absolutely nothing in it that tries to elevate Gallego as "the next Democratic messiah"! (your phrase)
Jennifer Rubin offers an informative nuts-and-bolts description of Ruben Gallego’s messaging and what he did to win. In my opinion, that is very interesting.
As for Mark Kelly, he won a special election during far less challenging times.
I'm not saying you or the article did elevate him, but I've read endless comments here since the election jumping on his bandwagon.
If the election taught us one thing it's that just because Gallego is a Hispanic man who won a senate seat we shouldn't run based off of demographics. Watch his debate with Lake. He was not great.
Sorry if it came off as my takeaway from that article. But the Downballot is notorious for literalism. I am referencing past comments, not yours. Sorry for the confusion.
Yea he had a great opponent, and he didn't hemorrhage Hispanic voters, for obvious reasons, like Harris did. Can't really bottle that.
I think it's important that when on The Downballot that you should not take comments that anyone says about Gallego "winning because he's Latino" literally as full analysis. Not everyone here is a political analyst. We all have different trains of thought and know certain things here and there based on what we read at a given time.
No one here is arguing Gallego is a messiah. When I'm arguing that he's in the same boat as Senator John Fetterman, it's that Gallego is in fact being blunt and truthful while at the same time running his own Senate campaign in a state that Trump won. Both he and Fetterman happen to be Democrats who are in fact talking about bread and butter issues that matter instead of trying to be like Gavin Newsom and others who want to be "hip in the crowd" and go for headlines. It's more that more of these Democrats can get elected in states like AZ and PA. There are voters who like politicians like Gallego and Fetterman instead of ones who always try to polish their speeches.
Also, Fetterman didn't win by a large margin as well in his Senate race. Dr. Oz, like Kari Lake, was also a very flawed candidate. However, Fetterman won the Senate election by just 4.92% points. It may be in this current political environment that these margins may have to do for now in Senate elections in states like AZ and PA.
FYI, how a candidate is at a debate isn't always full-proof of the campaign being run.
I'm not on the train but don't see any reason to discount his win based on what you said.
1) He won which is most important.
2) Kelly won his first election to the senate in 2020 (51.2-48.8 2.4%) against a bad opponent who was just rejected two years ago while Biden was winning the state. Gallego won by the exact same margin (50.1-47.7 2.4%) While Trump was winning the state by more than five.
3) Shapiro winning by double digits likely helped Fetterman win by more.
4) Gallego was facing stronger head winds than Baldwin, Casey, Rosen or Slotkin and won by more than all of them.
5) Speaking style is subjective. Trump to me sounds like an alcoholic/dementia patient grandfather who constantly lies and blames everyone else for his personal failings but people apparently find some charisma in that.
I don't want to delve into primary talk but in terms of his win I think he should be considered as much as anyone else who wants to run that year.
you should look at the whole board; the fact that Gallego actually won in that state in the environment he ran in is extremely impressive; Lake or no Lake(not discussing Kelly at all here; clearly, if Kelly runs in 2028, Gallego would most likely wait)
No ceiling for Trump’s hypocrisy!
For years, Republicans have been professing concern about the national debt – and, during every budget negotiation, Republican legislators have used their unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the Democrats.
Trump and Musk have not only blown up the negotiated short-term budget that was ready to quickly pass...
Now suddenly Trump demands Congress *eliminate* the debt ceiling?? This is an alarming signal that he has some very bad plans for America’s economy – and for your economy and my economy.
I mean we should, objectively, dispense with (or at least greatly reform) the function of the debt ceiling. Just not for the reasons that Trump probably wants to
Agreed! Context matters. During his single term, Trump accrued 25% of the nation’s debt, much of it due to tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy – unsupported tax cuts that had to be financed by loans!
Democrats now have an opportunity to use the debt ceiling against Trump and Republican legislators. This is definitely NOT the time to eliminate it.
Dems aren't going to hold the debt ceiling hostage over tax cuts because a) The politics are awful and b) They aren't saboteurs willing to hurt the most vulnerable over politics like the GOP is.
The debt ceiling is a weapon only valuable to one side. If they're willing to toss it overboard, help them do it.
Dems should sign on to a permanent repeal of the debt ceiling, which serves no useful purpose and only allows bad actors to make mischief. That said, if Trump proposes 'repealing' it only through 2028, Dems should not play ball. Let the Rs beat each other up.
I have to admit this is an interesting gauntlet throw by Trump: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/12/19/congress/gop-strikes-a-new-spending-deal-00195410
As expected, he could give a shit about spending (I think the bromance between Musk, who wants a Milei-style destructor, and Trump will end sooner than later) but it has the 2 year debt ceiling extender. Freedom Caucus-types are already balking (with Trump calling on a primary of Chip Roy lol)
Jefferies is saying no, but if I were him I'd say kill it permanently and enough of the caucus will push it through.
MILEI A CATASTROPHE for Argentina
"Milei’s severe spending cuts have hit the poor hard. Statistics show that for the first half of this year, almost 53% of Argentina’s 45 million people were living in poverty – a two-decade high – up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023. Some 18% of people were living in extreme poverty, while more than six out of 10 of under-14s lived below the poverty line."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/18/argentina-javier-milei-chainsaw-measures
A DISASTER…
A year into Javier Milei's presidency, Argentina's poverty hits a new high
"For nearly 40 years, Argentina’s poverty level had consistently hovered above 25 percent. But since the far-right Milei took office on December 10, 2023, that figure has skyrocketed.
"Over the last year, the poverty rate reached nearly 53 percent. That is the highest level in 20 years, according to a research team at the Argentine Catholic University (UCA) that has kept track of key economic indicators."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/12/7/a-year-into-javier-mileis-presidency-argentinas-poverty-hits-a-new-high
I assume Dems will send back a counteroffer to see how much the GOP is willing to give up. Permanent repeal could be one proposal which IMO should be enough to get most Dems to support it. If the GOP won't take that, there could be other conditions.
100%. What was the point of the debt ceiling in the first place?
I mean, eliminating the invented debt ceiling has been a Dem wishlist item for years; if he somehow manages to get the GOP on board over the next two days on a Clean CR and axing the debt ceiling Dems would be fools not to follow suit. That all said I highly highly doubt that happens and think we're in for a protracted shutdown for what will be the dumbest reason in history.
I also find it hilarious that so many Trump voting but non-MAGA Rs convinced themselves that Trump and Musk were going to do some grand vision entitlement reform next Congress . . .ha! Trump's going to explode the deficit like all GOP Presidents do (and like he did the first time around), and the "Fiscal Hawks" will just have to eat it. Because any actual debt management requires action on mandatory spending accounts; you could cut 80% of discretionary spending and it would make little difference (besides sending the economy into a depression, thus making deficits worse).
Debt management requires making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share – for instance by bringing back Reagan Era tax rates. The current myopic focus on cost-cutting is unproductive. The revenue side of the equation is far more important.
I'm all for raising taxes on the wealthy but demographic realities will require the developed world to make structural reforms (I'm not talking slashing services) to retirement programs in the next quarter century. The more countries restrict immigration, the sooner the bill will be due.
The double-edged sword there is that immigration accelerates Medicaid enrollment. Check out, once again, Springfield, Ohio, where the spike of Haitian migrants from Biden's backdoor guest-worker program was nearly directly proportional to the explosion of Medicaid enrollees in Clark County as taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the cheap labor hired at the very jobs that were government-subsidized in the first place. Don't expect this to be an isolated incident, and it's the latest reminder to me that the credits and debits ledger as far as immigration and entitlements is concerned isn't as lopsided as we're led to believe, especially if immigration is weaponized to consolidate wealth for oligarchs as Biden assisted with in Springfield.
It's Medicare and exploding end of life costs for an aging population that are most sending the U.S. to a fiscal cliff, not Medicaid.
I'd be curious to know what in your view was an alternative pathway to growth that existed for Springfield absent immigration. I'm quite familiar with towns that have followed the trajectory of Springfield; their options are basically always a) Reinvent itself as a tourist hub (not always possible) b) Attract a bunch of immigrants.
Occasionally a new manufacturing facility is option 3, but that's often more luck than anything the town did to attract them (and pickings are slim).
Given that Medicare and Medicaid can't and won't survive without each other, I don't think we can dismiss the connection between low-wage employers dumping their employees onto Medicaid and the pending entitlement crisis.
The Springfield situation is Exhibit A of the risk for immigration done disastrously wrong. We've bequeathed their employers both the labor supply, through a work permit gimmick, and their compensation package by allowing them to dump said guest workers onto the Medicaid rolls. It's unsustainable both politically and financially, but I got no sense from Biden or the Democrats that they saw a problem with it.
I don't dispute your premise that more immigration will be needed to prop up both economic growth and entitlement financing, but we needed to foster a culture where the public's intuitive skepticism about immigration could be minimized to accomplish the needed political environment to pull that off. Instead, we spent three years pretending there was nothing we could do to stop 10 million people from crossing the border and then slipped in a backdoor guest-worker program to funnel refugees into manufacturing jobs that pay so low that their workers are all signing up for Medicaid.....even as American citizens are told Medicaid is approaching bankruptcy. It's hard to imagine a more perfect blueprint to destroy our chances at winning over the public on immigration.
Getting rid of the debt ceiling is a great idea.
Yes, but not if Trump uses massive new debt to finance tax giveaways – in the same manner, and to the same demographics, he did last time.
He’s going to do it regardless.
The debt ceiling has realistically only ever been used against us in the modern era. Republicans consistently use it during dem presidencies to get some policy concessions, while democrats are largely unwilling to return the favor. Not to mention that it's simply bad policy — there's a reason that our peers in the global economy are not replicating it in their own governance.
If our opponents want to get rid of the debt ceiling we should get on board. It will help us so much more than it will help them.
From what I am reading, there is talk of "temporarily" scrapping the debt ceiling – for instance, for the next two years. If so, it would be back in place by the time the next president, who might well be a Democrat, is sworn in in 2029.
What’s the functional difference between “temporarily” scrapping it and a two-year suspension a la every previous debt ceiling standoff
In the past, if I recall correctly, the debt ceiling has generally been raised, not scrapped or suspended. I could be wrong...
Trump will sadly still be President in two years . . .
Interesting interview with the Trump campaign team. They were feeling confident about winning the popular vote nearly two weeks out.
Interviewer points out that Trumps closing in the last two weeks was what made Dems feel confident themselves.
They responded that the people left on the sidelines at that point were people tuned out to mainstream news.
They also say Harris' initial wave receded like a tide. They give the opinion that she closed badly with too many messages.
"Because they just didn’t really have a coherent message. And they changed. I mean, one of the untold stories of this race — perfect example, last week of the campaign. They ran 162 different unique creatives on digital, TV"
They also believed from the start that persuadable voters were a much higher share of the electorate than the Harris campaign.
"We’re focusing on the group of persuadable voters and a group of low propensity voters. It’s two different tacks. Low propensity: Get them to vote. Persuadable: Try to get them over. The Harris campaign was convinced [persuadables were] around 4 to 6 percent. We knew it was probably closer to 10 to 12 percent. We focused the entire campaign built around the issues that matter to the persuadable voters early. Tony modeled them, and we tracked what the electorate, based on the persuadables, was thinking. And that drove all of our decision making. All of our decision making. We spent millions in mail in the summer, which we were roundly criticized for doing. All of this stuff was something that we started in June."
Another anecdote: Michelle Obama was the strongest tested Biden alternative that the Trump team modeled against.
On Trump's media ploys toward the end of the campaign, they were deliberate:
"Where she’s doing the big speech or having the big debate, the conventional warfare, traditional campaign tactics. Donald Trump goes to the McDonald’s drive-through. But in the year 2024, when we’re all living on our phones, a big speech at the Ellipse vs. Trump at the drive-through, which is going to break through?"
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/19/trump-campaign-lacivita-fabrizio-qa-00195206
I mean it’s mostly bullshit. They gambled and it paid off b/c enough people bought the nonsense about prices and their outside money guy ran ratfuck campaigns to keep prior Biden voters home. Neither trump’s people were as brilliant as they and Politico claim nor where Harris’ staff as incompetent as many here (and Politico) claim. It was much more about the fallout from global pandemic economy and good ole’ misogyny and racism.
I think brushing off Trumps campaigns at this point as "lucky" is the absolute wrong takeaway. Especially this last one.
Point is they were seeing things the Harris campaign did not and were running a very different type of media game that was, ultimately, effective.
That is the takeaway.
I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
It wasn't perfect but it wasn't bad. She had a weak hand to play.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.
The media always treats a winning campaign as total geniuses and a losing campaign as being flawed from the start. The truth is more nuanced and complex.
As Carville or someone from Clinton's campaign said, "it's the economy, stupid". Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs was not brilliant, it was a sideshow.
Trump's in-person campaign was a disaster, but his media campaign was pretty effective considering all forms of media.
Yes, that I’d agree with
Wasn't really a gamble. The American people wanted to hear about fixes for the economy and the border and Democrats wanted to talk about reproductive rights and January 6, 2021. Hard to imagine a scenario where the opposition party doesn't win in that circumstance.
Michelle Obama lost me with her scolding message to male voters that they were insufficiently deferential to women's priorities. Talk about the worst possible thing to say to a demographic that already feels disconnected from your party/candidate's message. If she brought that messaging instinct to the campaign trail, she definitely wouldn't have been our salvation.
Wasn't it her husband, Barack Obama, who made those remarks about black men?
Longtime Fox “News” and Fox “Business” fixture Neil Cavuto is leaving both stations at the end of the year. Cavuto joined FNC at its 1996 founding and was one of the founding faces of FBN.
Cavuto was a stalwart economic conservative; however, during the Trump years, he was one of the very few voices over at Fox that was at least semi-critical of Donald Trump.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-neil-cavuto-leaving-fox-news/
You must be totally adherent or else you must go.
Massive explosions at Russian military base near Murmansk
I am seeing this story on numerous Norwegian news sites, but it’s not yet widely reported in the English-speaking press, with the exception of the niche website The Barents Observer.
The explosions took place Wednesday near the HQ of Russia's Northern Fleet, more specifically at the Severomorsk-1 naval base. This base has considerable weapons and munitions depots, fuel storage facilities, and a naval airport. The explosions happened on Wednesday afternoon between 2:24 and 2:27pm UTC. Some observers believe the explosions happened in the air above the base.
No word yet on the damage, or whether this is an accident or possible Ukrainian sabotage or attack.
https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/news/massive-explosions-near-severomorsk/422315
Hmm. Seems pretty distant but hey, good to strike anytime anywhere if it is indeed SBU or HUR behind this
Given that's near the Arctic Circle it would be logistically extremely impressive if Ukraine was behind that.
they are extremely impressive in this game(the hit on the General the other day was a masterpiece); not saying it was them but it would not surprise me
"
The new census population estimates out today suggest a slightly less dramatic 2030 reapportionment.
Florida & Texas would gain 4 seats each. California would lose 4.
But New York’s loses down to just 2 seats and Michigan would keep all its seats."
Still very bad for Dems post 2030
https://x.com/mcpli/status/1869777518129299748?t=zztCwbNIwk9iR1WVHKoSGA&s=19
I imagine it will get “slightly less dramatic” every year from here until 2030; the Census’ record in terms of projecting forward is iffy, and the 2020-22 COVID years has thrown a fair bit off
It’s wild though to see Michigan hanging onto all its seats while Minnesota and Wisconsin don’t, though
Probably just rounding. MN and WI could grow faster than MI and lose seats if they were just on the cusp of losing one in 2020 and MI nearly kept the seat it lost.
All the more reason to rid ourselves of the relic that is the Electoral College. I'm glad that state level Dems seem to mostly have their priorities right on this. Now if only we could expand the House and remove the ridiculous arbitrary cap that's been around since 1929. Too many antiquated relics to abolish and phase out, including many of our politicians.
none of this is going to happen for a very long time (if ever)
The cap is more likely to be repealed if we start dominating in all the large states again. Abolition of the Electoral College and US Senate are MUCH less likely. Especially since the former favors swing states and the latter favors small states.
Indeed. The British House of Commons has more than 200 additional MPs and the UK is only roughly one fifth of our population. Absolutely absurd to limit ourselves to 435 US House Members.
ABC News Adopts Zero-Tolerance Policy for News
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Going forward, ABC News will have a “zero tolerance policy for news,” the CEO of parent company Disney said at an all-hands meeting on Thursday.
“In recent days, I’ve heard troubling reports of ABC News employees recklessly dabbling in news,” Bob Iger told the gathering at ABC’s Manhattan headquarters. “This ends now.”
Declaring ABC News “a news-free zone,” he said, “If you find yourself tempted to do news, I want you to ask yourself: is it worth risking your career?”
Iger’s anti-news policy, however, drew a harsh rebuke from Fox News Channel, who claimed that ABC was infringing on its brand.
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/abc-news-adopts-zero-tolerance-policy
Beast Mode..👍
After Co-Presidents Musk & Trump killed the budget deal that was essentially done, Johnson & Co have been forced to come up with an alternative – without, of course, trying to talk to the Democrats. Which will make this very, very hard to push through the House.
One of the few cost saving measures in the original bill was PBM reform. But thanks to the lobbying efforts of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (and perhaps their campaign donations), that proposed reform has now been axed.
Link to Jake Sherman, founding Editor of Punchbowl News:
https://nitter.poast.org/JakeSherman/status/1869845186970312846#m
An appropriate summary by a cartoonist:
https://nitter.poast.org/HokiePharmacist/status/1869848532871704694#m
Speaker Johnson will hold the House vote on the new Republican bill under a so-called "suspension of the rules", meaning it will require a two-thirds majority – in other words a helluva lot of Democratic votes. But with Johnson & co walking back from a done deal, and not doing anything to meed Democratic concerns, he’s not giving Dems much incentive to vote for it.
When it in all likelihood fails tonight, the bill goes back to the Rules Committee. IF and only if the Rules Committee, approves, a second vote House vote will be held, this time requiring only a simple majority.
If Democrats stand united and refuse to lend a helping hand, Johnson & Co will be in real trouble. A growing number of Republicans have already said they’ll vote NO. Amongst them: Bob Goode, Andy Ogles, Ralph Norman and Chip Roy.
Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries is astutely referring to this as the "Trump-Musk-Johnson Bill". One thing is for sure, those three will own the unfolding chaos that we’re soon likely to see – as well as the government shutdown that may follow the Republican inability to get this done.
BREAKING: TRUMP-BACKED CR FAILS THE HOUSE .... 174-235-1
A stunning 38 Republicans ignored Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson and voted no. The bill was considered under a fast-track method that required 2/3 for passage. Not only did it not get 2/3. It didn't even clear 218, a simple majority.
An inauspicious start to Trump's reemergence into the legislating world.
https://nitter.poast.org/JakeSherman/status/1869894957210763656#m
Who were the two Democrats who votes for it?
MGP and Castor, who wanted the relief money as her district got hit by the hurricanes badly
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) voted Present. Along with Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) who voted Yes, only three Democrats failed to vote with their party leader.
Whereas a stunning 38 Republicans broke with the clearly expressed wishes of President-Elect Trump and Speaker Johnson. I’d say Trump is off to a very, very bad start!
Why are they burning precious political capital right now…… please proceed
Because Trump is a strategic genius – or, should I say, "a stable genius".
In other words, a "genius" who is best suited to shovel horseshit, and perhaps elephant shit, out of the stables.
I missed this one and assume it was a terrible oversight but yeah with Shapiro on this one. Yes there wasn't much on the sentence left and he was already in home confinement but still pisses me off.
"Biden's decision to commute the 17-year prison sentence of Michael Conahan angered many in northeastern Pennsylvania, from the governor to the families whose children were victimized by the disgraced former judge. Conahan had already served the vast majority of his sentence, which was handed down in 2011.
“I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely wrong and created a lot of pain here in northeastern Pennsylvania,” Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said during an unrelated news conference in Scranton on Friday."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bidens-commutation-kids-cash-scandal-angers-pennsylvania-families-116779949
Young people in Montana for the climate win.
Montana’s top court delivers rare victory for climate activists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/12/18/montana-supreme-court-ruling-climate-change-youth/
Now we're talking!