i hadnt heard of jim jordan before today. the republican party sure has a lot of giant dick heads in their ranks.

Everytime there is one of these things he proves he's a dickhead.. I remember listening to a hearing before and he was the same.

Just drilling down a little on the exit polls--there's a lot of discussion concerning the importance of African Americans, especially African American women for Democrats, and that's certainly true. On the flip side though, if you pull out white evangelicals (which to be sure is a big chunk of the Southern vote) you'll see Moore losing by 54 points! That is, Jones beat Moore 76-22 among everyone who is not a white evangelical. So, really, the Republicans need white evangelicals in the South almost as much Dems need African American voters. And here's the thing--those evangelicals had reasons for supporting Moore in the primary--the establishment Republican party has simply not delivered at all anything for social conservatives except a couple of judges who haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade. On every other issue, social conservatives have simply got their asses handed to them. So, I suspect that in states where evangelicals are the biggest part of the Republican coalition, they are going to continue to nominate fringe candidates. Some of these candidates may win, but they aren't necessarily going to win easily and some will lose (look at Louisiana's governor's election between Vitter and Bel Edwards). At the same time, they will be a problem for those parts of the country where the Republicans will have to distance themselves from the fringes of their party. While I'm not sure we're going to see a Republican civil war (because right now the establishment clearly has the upper hand) there are serious tensions in the Reagan coalition. On top of that, the lunacy of the evangelical (as evidenced by their support of Roy Moore and others like him) makes it harder for the party to appeal to anyone else--there is no significant group of unaffiliated voters that is likely to join the shrinking and fragmenting Republican coalition. Bush, you'll recall, tried to bring in social conservative Latinos, but the racists in the party have wrecked that strategy. (As a side note--while Rove was a scumbag, he was not committed to the kind of divisiveness that motivates Bannon and his supporters. What Rove wanted was to expand the Reagan coalition, and make it permanent by using big donors to rack up electoral victories all over the map--he was far from a purist. Bannon by contrast seems to care about promoting fascist ideology far more than actually winning elections.)

The other big piece of data that almost no one is talking about is the age break down. Voters under fort five went for Jones by 20 points. (interestingly, the
30-44 group was slightly more pro Jones than the 18-29 group). Moore gets a small win among the 45-64 group, and wins the 65+ group by about the same margins Jones wins the younger voters. Again, this isn't surprising, except the magnitude issue.

Of course there were unique factors in this election, but we're talking Alabama.

-

House and Senate have reached an agreement on the tax deal, ignoring the will of the Alabamian people to let their Senator-elect to have a say.

Texas dems really gearing up to usurp Ted Cruz

CalvinBall wrote:Texas dems really gearing up to usurp Ted Cruz

this would rule so hard

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Texas dems really gearing up to usurp Ted Cruz

this would rule so hard

Will Trump campaign for Cruz? Does Cruz want Trump campaigning for him? There's obviously a lot of personal animosity there, but there's also a ton of overlap among their supporters.

I feel like the House Republicans are laying groundwork to fire Mueller here. They are trying to point to the team as biased, which means Mueller must be biased or ignorant.

It's very surprising (not surprising at all) that mitch is going to ram this tax bill through as is so Jones can't vote on it and so he can therefore afford a collins defection.

TenuredVulture wrote:Just drilling down a little on the exit polls--there's a lot of discussion concerning the importance of African Americans, especially African American women for Democrats, and that's certainly true. On the flip side though, if you pull out white evangelicals (which to be sure is a big chunk of the Southern vote) you'll see Moore losing by 54 points! That is, Jones beat Moore 76-22 among everyone who is not a white evangelical. So, really, the Republicans need white evangelicals in the South almost as much Dems need African American voters. And here's the thing--those evangelicals had reasons for supporting Moore in the primary--the establishment Republican party has simply not delivered at all anything for social conservatives except a couple of judges who haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade. On every other issue, social conservatives have simply got their asses handed to them. So, I suspect that in states where evangelicals are the biggest part of the Republican coalition, they are going to continue to nominate fringe candidates. Some of these candidates may win, but they aren't necessarily going to win easily and some will lose (look at Louisiana's governor's election between Vitter and Bel Edwards). At the same time, they will be a problem for those parts of the country where the Republicans will have to distance themselves from the fringes of their party. While I'm not sure we're going to see a Republican civil war (because right now the establishment clearly has the upper hand) there are serious tensions in the Reagan coalition. On top of that, the lunacy of the evangelical (as evidenced by their support of Roy Moore and others like him) makes it harder for the party to appeal to anyone else--there is no significant group of unaffiliated voters that is likely to join the shrinking and fragmenting Republican coalition. Bush, you'll recall, tried to bring in social conservative Latinos, but the racists in the party have wrecked that strategy. (As a side note--while Rove was a scumbag, he was not committed to the kind of divisiveness that motivates Bannon and his supporters. What Rove wanted was to expand the Reagan coalition, and make it permanent by using big donors to rack up electoral victories all over the map--he was far from a purist. Bannon by contrast seems to care about promoting fascist ideology far more than actually winning elections.)

The other big piece of data that almost no one is talking about is the age break down. Voters under fort five went for Jones by 20 points. (interestingly, the
30-44 group was slightly more pro Jones than the 18-29 group). Moore gets a small win among the 45-64 group, and wins the 65+ group by about the same margins Jones wins the younger voters. Again, this isn't surprising, except the magnitude issue.

Of course there were unique factors in this election, but we're talking Alabama.

-

I have been thinking that even though Moore lost, white voters sided with him about 70% (I don't remember the actual number and don't feel like looking it up). I feel that it is important to remember that a large majority of white Alabamans are scumbag assholes. Of course, as you say above, it looks like most of them are evangelicals which makes them scumbag asshole morons.

TenuredVulture wrote:(interestingly, the 30-44 group was slightly more pro Jones than the 18-29 group).

That's easily chalked up to the older group being mostly young parents with children in the age group targeted by Moore.

slugsrbad wrote:Apparently you can only be unbiased investigating a Republican if you are a Republican.

Yes but if you are a Republican investigating a Republican you are no True Republican, so...

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Texas dems really gearing up to usurp Ted Cruz

this would rule so hard

Biggest available prize, if it can be done.

mozartpc27 wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Apparently you can only be unbiased investigating a Republican if you are a Republican.

Yes but if you are a Republican investigating a Republican you are no True Republican, so...

it costs too much money to investigate

also, let's pass this trillion dollar tax giveaway to billionaires

it's funny how they went back to their cave to reconcile the two bills and the overwhelming talk was that it do too much for the wealthy and corporations and not enough (and possibly damaging) to the working class. So what do they decide in their cave? To cut the top tax bracket even more!!!!

Is there any indication as to whether they're going with a 2018 or 2019 implementation?

Bucky wrote:it's funny how they went back to their cave to reconcile the two bills and the overwhelming talk was that it do too much for the wealthy and corporations and not enough (and possibly damaging) to the working class. So what do they decide in their cave? To cut the top tax bracket even more!!!!

Yeah, the Senate Bill had a top rate of 38.5% and the House Bill had a top rate of 39.6% so an agreed to rate of 37% makes perfect sense. Looking forward to the revelation that the top bracket now won't kick in until $750,000 (vs. $500,000 currently in both bills). These people are fucking despicable.

Saw this from the Chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors:

Jason Furman‏Verified account
@jasonfurman
(38.5 + 39.6) / 2 = 37?

JUburton wrote:Is there any indication as to whether they're going with a 2018 or 2019 implementation?

Pretty sure it’s TY2018.

pacino wrote:with the unemployment funding bill finally getting traction in the senate and getting to the floor, Scott Wanger tried to derail it:

Sen. Scott Wanger, R-York County, who also opposed the legislation, unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill to include some changes to the unemployment compensation law relating to eligibility for benefits and changes to the way disputes are settled, along with specifically stating no additional state funding for the UC system after 2021.

Committee Chairwoman Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland County, said those reforms are valid and should be considered but both she and the bill's sponsor, House Labor & Industry Committee Chairman Rob Kauffman, R-Franklin County, prefer to address them separate from the funding bill that was a product of compromise she reached with the House members.

his 'reforms' were to cut benefits to people that need to pay bills. what a piece of #$!&@

passed 43-5, will go to Wolf to sign!!!!

thank you to anyone that called their legislator on our behalf

Uncle Milty wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The other big piece of data that almost no one is talking about is the age break down. Voters under fort five went for Jones by 20 points. (interestingly, the
30-44 group was slightly more pro Jones than the 18-29 group). Moore gets a small win among the 45-64 group, and wins the 65+ group by about the same margins Jones wins the younger voters. Again, this isn't surprising, except the magnitude issue.

I think the 30-44 make sense. They've had more opportunity to break away from parents/family views and establish lives/families of their own.

Well, it's not a statistically significant difference, and exit polls don't have that much precision anyway. But I think what's happening is that the Republicans have not just alienated millennials, but also big chunks of Gen X. Conventionally, voting and ideological patterns are established by your mid 20s. The Obama advantage among first time voters in 2008 has eroded, but only very slightly.

Which convinces me that part of what was working against Hillary was not just gender but also a generation gap. Young people could connect with Obama in way they just didn't with HRC. I can't really articulate it, but I think there's a decent amount of resentment against baby boomers--they seemed to have it pretty easy, have a strong sense of entitlement (though millennials are stereotyped that way in my experience (and I do spend a lot of time with them) it doesn't seem to be the case) and simply do not understand the challenges young people are facing. (I mean, I think Bernie gets it a little bit).