Democrats take House, Republicans increase hold on Senate

[Midwest LDS]

Interesting night politically, and it looks like we are in for some divided government for the next 2 years. Personally, I'm more relived Republicans did so well in the Senate. Unless something changed overnight, we picked up Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, and Missouri. If we don't lose Arizona, that's a 4 seat pickup which was the best case scenario I pictured in the Senate, otherwise a gain of 3 seats. I'm curious to see what the Democrats do during the next 2 years, as I think their actions in the House will greatly influence the outcome of the 2020 election. 

[Sunday21]

@Midwest LDS  as I think their actions in the House will greatly influence the outcome of the 2020 election. 

Can you please explain? 

I really want USMCA ago pass the House so I am a bit concerned about a divided House.

[Guest Godless]

Dems took a handful of governorships as well, including what some are calling an upset win in Kansas. We will now have over 100 women serving in the US House of representatives. Living in Texas, there was a flurry of reactions to tonight's results. Ultimately there seems to be plenty for both sides to celebrate. 

[Midwest LDS]

8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@Midwest LDS  as I think their actions in the House will greatly influence the outcome of the 2020 election. 

Can you please explain? 

I really want USMCA ago pass the House so I am a bit concerned about a divided House.

Sure! I think if Democrats focus on passing moderate bills, and paint themselves as the reasonable opposition, avoiding some of their more radical ideas like attempting to abolish ICE or actually impeaching Trump, they will look really good heading into the 2020 presidential election. If, instead they start pointless impeachment hearings, and continue the politics of rage, it will weaken them and make them vulnerable again. USMCA may be in danger, as many Democrats don't like Trump's tariffs. I would say if they come in wanting to look moderate they will pass it. If they come in looking to stick it to Trump by going against everything he supports, USMCA may be in trouble. It's a little too early to tell.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[let’s roll]

I hope I’m wrong because I prefer to be an optimist, but my gut tells me the Democrats will use their majority in the House to investigate all things Tump and spend the next two years demonizing him in hopes of winning the WH in 2020 and that the President will spend the next two years blaming all bad news on the fact that the Democrats are wasting their time in a witch hunt against him and not tending to the needs of the country.

Best case scenario is that the new young blood in the Democratic Party dumps their bitter leadership, sees the need to move toward the center in order to get legislation through the Senate and passes some bills on immigration et al that have enough common sense in them that the Senate passes them as well.   At the same time the Senate Judiciary committee has a clear path to approve non activist judges.

[Guest Godless]

I don't think the House will go into full investigation mode. But I do believe that those tax returns may be coming before 2019 is over. Too much has been made of them to simply let it go, and the Dems are bound to make a play or two to attempt to weaken Trump's 2020 bid.

[Sunday21]

I think that a move towards the Center would be a good move for the Dem’s. Perhaps a move to dignity and acting Presidential could become a trend. 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Godless said:

. We will now have over 100 women serving ...

Why is this significant?

As a woman, I would find it very anti-feminist to put importance on my gender when taking a seat at Congress.  Like, that's the reason I got put there.

 

4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

... and acting Presidential.

Which has zero definition.  Every action of a President is Presidential.  

The only difference between George Washington attacking the press as "every act of my administration would be tortured . . . in such exaggerated form and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter or even a common pickpocket" and Trump's "you are Fake News" is the exotic flair of old english as heard by modern people.

Edited November 7, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Why is this significant?

As a woman, I would find it very anti-feminist to put importance on my gender when taking a seat at Congress.  Like, that's the reason I got put there.

 

It's significant to feminists because for decades, issues of women's health and reproductive rights (and don't worry, I know full well where you stand on those issues) have been left in the hands of men. So yes, this is a huge win for the feminist movement. Diversity in the political landscape is a great thing, and has been long overdue. Women, non-Christians, and PoC have a chance to offer a voice to people in this country who are often overlooked and underrepresented. Yes, job qualifications are vitally important as well. Just like their male counterparts, these women have to prove that they belong in Washington. But more diversity in our Congressional representation is by itself a great thing and worth celebrating. 

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

I don't think the House will go into full investigation mode. But I do believe that those tax returns may be coming before 2019 is over. Too much has been made of them to simply let it go, and the Dems are bound to make a play or two to attempt to weaken Trump's 2020 bid.

AS long as he hasn't done anything wrong, best political move would be for Trump to simply release them pre-emptively.  Thus, there may be things that cause outrage, but if released pretty quickly, that outrage probably will be gone far before the next election comes around.  This effectively detooths any political strategy built around forcing the tax returns to be shown.

On the otherhand, if he has done something illegal on them...it would be counter intuitive to do this, and forcing them to be shown could have longer term ramifications.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS long as he hasn't done anything wrong, best political move would be for Trump to simply release them pre-emptively.  Thus, there may be things that cause outrage, but if released pretty quickly, that outrage probably will be gone far before the next election comes around.  This effectively detooths any political strategy built around forcing the tax returns to be shown.

On the otherhand, if he has done something illegal on them...it would be counter intuitive to do this, and forcing them to be shown could have longer term ramifications.

Or, if he hasn't done anything wrong, let's them waste their resources into compelling him to turn over what amounts to be a giant nothing-burger. They waste their time and he gets to play the martyr just in time for reelection.

[JohnsonJones]

20 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Or, if he hasn't done anything wrong, let's them waste their resources into compelling him to turn over what amounts to be a giant nothing-burger. They waste their time and he gets to play the martyr just in time for reelection.

Well, if it's something like what Romney had on his tax returns it can generate a LOT of ill will.  If right before an election, that's probably going to hurt someone more than it helps regardless of how legal it is.

In Trumps case I can only seeing it hurt him no matter if it is completely legal or not.  If illegal it could have longer ramifications, but if it is completely legal, better to have it as far removed from the election as he can. 

If it is completely legal I think that is probably why he has not wanted them to be released.  Many of the legal things people can do can paint someone in a very bad light from some political angles.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS long as he hasn't done anything wrong, best political move would be for Trump to simply release them pre-emptively.  Thus, there may be things that cause outrage, but if released pretty quickly, that outrage probably will be gone far before the next election comes around.  This effectively detooths any political strategy built around forcing the tax returns to be shown.

On the otherhand, if he has done something illegal on them...it would be counter intuitive to do this, and forcing them to be shown could have longer term ramifications.

 

25 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Or, if he hasn't done anything wrong, let's them waste their resources into compelling him to turn over what amounts to be a giant nothing-burger. They waste their time and he gets to play the martyr just in time for reelection.

There is very little in Trump's words and actions over the past 2 years (and especially today) that indicates that he's got nothing to hide. 

 

[Sunday21]

I admit that I know little about US politics. Is the any chance of a moderate 3rd party? I know most US church members are Republican But is there an not acceptable compromise candidate with a steadier personality than the current incumbent? 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Sunday21

[let’s roll]

45 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, if it's something like what Romney had on his tax returns it can generate a LOT of ill will.  If right before an election, that's probably going to hurt someone more than it helps regardless of how legal it is.

In Trumps case I can only seeing it hurt him no matter if it is completely legal or not.  If illegal it could have longer ramifications, but if it is completely legal, better to have it as far removed from the election as he can. 

If it is completely legal I think that is probably why he has not wanted them to be released.  Many of the legal things people can do can paint someone in a very bad light from some political angles.

If the last two years have taught us anything it’s that there aren’t too many fence sitters when it comes to the President.  Whatever his tax returns might show to an objective observer, they will be considered evidence of his acumen by his supporters, and considered evidence of his corruption by his opponents.  

I trust the few who still have mixed feelings about him will find ample reason to have mixed feelings about his tax returns as well.

IMHO, his prospects for reelection have far more to do with who the Democrats run against him than anything that will happen over the next two years.  

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, let’s roll said:

If the last two years have taught us anything it’s that there aren’t too many fence sitters when it comes to the President.  Whatever his tax returns might show to an objective observer, they will be considered evidence of his acumen by his supporters, and considered evidence of his corruption by his opponents.  

I trust the few who still have mixed feelings about him will find ample reason to have mixed feelings about his tax returns as well.

IMHO, his prospects for reelection have far more to do with who the Democrats run against him than anything that will happen over the next two years.  

100% correct. No one is impartial on Trump. 

[Guest Godless]

10 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I admmit that I know little about US politics. Is the any chance of a moderate 3rd party? I know most US church members are Republican But is there not acceptable compromise candidate with a steadier personality than the current incumbent? 

Evan McMullin was your best shot and, well....

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Godless

[let’s roll]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

100% correct. No one is impartial on Trump. 

I hope you didn’t stay up last night waiting for the Florida governor and senator results.  😀. Two real nail-biters.  Is the recount for the Senate seat mandated by law because the results were so close or does it need to be requested?  We might have some hanging/clinging chad de ja vu.

[let’s roll]

19 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I admmit that I know little about US politics. Is the any chance of a moderate 3rd party? I know most US church members are Republican But is there not acceptable compromise candidate with a steadier personality than the current incumbent? 

We are a strange lot when it comes to elections.  An actor/bodybuilder was governor of California for part of the time I lived there.  Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as governor.  We tend to embrace political family dynasties (e.g. Kennedy, Bush).  

Entertainment/drama/scandal (real or contrived) get far more attention than policy...and whoever wins, a year later 30 percent of the electorate won’t be able to name the VP and more than half won’t know the speaker of the House and Senate Majorty Leader.

As to your question about third parties, conventional wisdom is that the most a third party candidate would ever be is a spoiler and could never be elected President.  That said, in the context of my description of the US electorate, I admit that it would be fascinating if Ms. Winfrey organized the O party and ran for President.

 

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

 

There is very little in Trump's words and actions over the past 2 years (and especially today) that indicates that he's got nothing to hide. 

 

 

This is actually a really good example of what I was saying. Here we are a year and half later, and we have convictions for lying and charges against Russians for interfering (which I understand is being fought since the interference was legally buying ad spots), but no collusion. It's given Trump the opportunity to play victim!

@anatess2 thinks the Senate seats were lost as a result of Kavanaugh's victimhood. Even without impeachment hearings, having the House force him to turn over tax returns plays right into the victim hand again. The House had better make sure there really is a smoking gun before they start publicly digging for it.

[Just_A_Guy]

As far as the tax code goes:  show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.  With anyone who is as wealthy and has such complicated financial affairs as Trump, there’s bound to be stuff in there that is at least controversial if not borderline impermissible. 

With this Sessions stuff, I almost wonder if Trump isn’t deliberately picking a fight with the incoming House majority to keep his base stoked for 2020.  It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with Madame Speaker.  

[NightSG]

48 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with Madame Speaker.  

The man got a court-ordered refund with interest from a high end hooker.  Pelosi is going to regret getting higher on his target list.

[SilentOne]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

That said, in the context of my description of the US electorate, I admit that it would be fascinating if Ms. Winfrey organized the O party and ran for President.

That reminds me of a topic I wanted to start. Just a minute...

Okay, started. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I hope you didn’t stay up last night waiting for the Florida governor and senator results.  😀. Two real nail-biters.  Is the recount for the Senate seat mandated by law because the results were so close or does it need to be requested?  We might have some hanging/clinging chad de ja vu.

I did stay up for it. I'm a news junkie who can't sleep if something like this is going on. 

Nelson needs to accept reality and stop the recount. I'm sure they will find more votes in one of the liberal counties and try and steal the election. 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As far as the tax code goes:  show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.  With anyone who is as wealthy and has such complicated financial affairs as Trump, there’s bound to be stuff in there that is at least controversial if not borderline impermissible. 

With this Sessions stuff, I almost wonder if Trump isn’t deliberately picking a fight with the incoming House majority to keep his base stoked for 2020.  It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with Madame Speaker.  

Sessions is an easy one.  I'm surprised he lasted this long.  Recusing from the Russian collusion issue made him a lame duck.

And Madame Speaker is going to be troll tweets all day long for the next 2 years.

Edited November 8, 2018 by anatess2