Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

A far more wonkish, historical look at why Trump won from the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ason-trump-won

It's the first of four parts! This part is not a partisan piece at all. It's a historic look at post-incumbent elections and how the party out of power always gains. The conclusion is up front in the article:

While Donald Trump’s accomplishment in breaking the “blue wall” of the Midwest after two consecutive Democratic victories might look impressive, he actually had — by a key measurement — the worst performance by a challenger in a post-incumbent election in 200 years. The only one worse was by a party that ceased to exist after the election.

The rest of article is a historic look at these types of elections and how DJT's election fits in that context.

IMO, it supports the conclusion that looking for "lessons" from the Presidential election may be folly -- the "what does it all mean" may be as simple as it was close to a historical inevitability that the Rs would bounce back...DESPITE DJT. DJT won for a host of reasons, not the least of which is historical inertia. The more fruitful areas for "lessons", IMO, are (a) the specific "B10" states in 2016; and (b) the R control of State governments.

The exciting 4 part series tackles (a) with the next part -- hopefully tomorrow! Can't wait.

[iam416]

A goddamn book of profile on Jeff Sessions from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/us...eral.html?_r=0

[hack]

I don't know Fallow's politics as well but I agree as enthusiastically as possible with the point that a system of checks and balances cannot, by itself, prevent corruption. It takes good people too. People of any ideological stripe who will constrain themselves when the opportunity presents itself to test the system and push its boundaries. Trump is a sea change from that type of person, and the legislative process is going to face new challenges. Holding six confirmation hearings at a time is a good example -- that's a way to have a legislative process while minimizing potential outcomes of having a legislative process. But it's not like we haven't been inching toward that anyways. EOs aren't new. McConnell, Cheney and the Clintons are all examples of people who make a mockery out of the concept of ``public service''.

[Dr. Strangelove]

A goddamn book of profile on Jeff Sessions from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/us...eral.html?_r=0

Remind me why you're a big fan of this guy, other than he pisses off liberals?

[CGVT]

While denying any racial prejudice, Mr. Sessions apologized for once saying he had thought members of the Klu Klux Klan ''were O.K. until I found out they smoked pot.'' Carter Nominee Rejected

[froot loops]

We'll see how this ACA repeal goes, the actual obvious solution is just to reform the existing law. But is not a political solution, they are staring a reality in the face that as much as they like to style themselves as libertarian small government conservatives, they have a lot of constituents that utilize services they deride as socialism.

The GOP has worked themselves into a tizzy over Obamacare. I think it is mostly because they also bought into the idea that the passage of it would create some enduring majority for the new recepients ts of health insurance for the Democrats. It is quite clear from this year's election that was a false belief.

They can delay all they want, there isn't a plan they can come up with that is very different without the same flaws. There is always an issue with this in that the plan is unpopular but the benefits are popular. Half of the unpopularity comes from people who wish it went further, repealing won't please those dissatisfied voters.

[hack]

A far more wonkish, historical look at why Trump won from the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ason-trump-won

It's the first of four parts! This part is not a partisan piece at all. It's a historic look at post-incumbent elections and how the party out of power always gains. The conclusion is up front in the article:



The rest of article is a historic look at these types of elections and how DJT's election fits in that context.

IMO, it supports the conclusion that looking for "lessons" from the Presidential election may be folly -- the "what does it all mean" may be as simple as it was close to a historical inevitability that the Rs would bounce back...DESPITE DJT. DJT won for a host of reasons, not the least of which is historical inertia. The more fruitful areas for "lessons", IMO, are (a) the specific "B10" states in 2016; and (b) the R control of State governments.

The exciting 4 part series tackles (a) with the next part -- hopefully tomorrow! Can't wait.

Good piece. Starting with the numbers is always the best way to start. And this is an excellent example of that.

[AlabamAlum]

Sessions is okay. He is not corrupt, he is generally fair-minded, and he's not dumb.

Wouldn't be my choice, but he won't be horrible.

[iam416]

Remind me why you're a big fan of this guy, other than he pisses off liberals?

I'm not a big fan of Sessions. He should be confirmed -- the "racist" stuff -- the "KKK line" is garbage. I'm not a fan of, say, Holder or Lynch, but they deserved to be confirmed.

Whoever DJT ends up with as AG is going to change things. There's no two ways about it. The Ds can Bork Sessions if they want and Corey Booker can kickstart his presidential campaign if he wants and maybe they win. At the end of the day, though, it matters not. We're still ending up with a conservative AG that will undo a number of things undertaken by Obama.

Sessions is okay. He is not corrupt, he is generally fair-minded, and he's not dumb.

Wouldn't be my choice, but he won't be horrible.

This is where I am, DSL.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm not a big fan of Sessions. He should be confirmed -- the "racist" stuff -- the "KKK line" is garbage. I'm not a fan of, say, Holder or Lynch, but they deserved to be confirmed.

Whoever DJT ends up with as AG is going to change things. There's no two ways about it. The Ds can Bork Sessions if they want and Corey Booker can kickstart his presidential campaign if he wants and maybe they win. At the end of the day, though, it matters not. We're still ending up with a conservative AG that will undo a number of things undertaken by Obama.



This is where I am, DSL.

Sorry, last week I had thought you had said the two nominees you were most excited about were Sessions and Pruitt. My bad.

[iam416]

It takes good people too. People of any ideological stripe who will constrain themselves when the opportunity presents itself to test the system and push its boundaries. Trump is a sea change from that type of person, and the legislative process is going to face new challenges.

I wonder if that's true. I mean, I understand that the founders very much wanted disinterested almost noblesse oblige politicians for the very reasons you state. My sense is that it didn't last particularly long -- perhaps as even as short as Jackson.

DJT certainly represents a significant change in some regards. And perhaps he represents the ultimate bottom in terms of the executive -- with Washington being the pinnacle in these terms. But when considering all levels of government I wonder if DJT is a shock to the system in terms of brazenly self-interested people holding power. I don't have the historical data to say one way or the other. Just literally wondering.

YMMV, but my visceral reaction is to resist the temptation to make broad conclusions so near an event -- so far from the historical outcome.

As far as the legislative process goes, the hope is now that massive self-interest, lobbies and the like balance the power and, if worse comes to worse, the voters check poor behavior/laws.

I still prefer it greatly to unaccountable, discretionary law-making. Warts and all (not saying you don't).

[iam416]

Sorry, last week I had thought you had said the two nominees you were most excited about were Sessions and Pruitt. My bad.

I was sassing CVGT. As I said, Sessions is fungible. The outcomes are going to be same, and I'll applaud more than I pan. I like Pruitt only insofar as it's a clear signal where DJT is going with the EPA.

The one piece of legislation that no one will care about except me -- and I'll love to death -- is the amendment to the Administrative Procedures Act that basically write Chevron deference out of the law and grants Courts de novo review of Administrative rules.

[Whitley]

I was sassing CVGT. As I said, Sessions is fungible. The outcomes are going to be same, and I'll applaud more than I pan. I like Pruitt only insofar as it's a clear signal where DJT is going with the EPA.

The one piece of legislation that no one will care about except me -- and I'll love to death -- is the amendment to the Administrative Procedures Act that basically write Chevron deference out of the law and grants Courts de novo review of Administrative rules.

I'll bite. I am guessing that this allows courts more flexibility but on what exactly?

A signal that Trump is not a fan of environmental regulations if they cost jobs at any cost?

[iam416]

Without getting too far into Administrative Law -- which I'm happy to do -- Agency rules are currently reviewed under the standard set forth in the Supreme Court case Chevron. Under that approach, the Court defers to an agency's interpretation of a statute unless it is unreasonable. The Court may think it's wrong, but unless it's clearly wrong, the Court won't touch it. It's a deferential standard.

The proposed rule replaces Chevron deference with de novo review. That means the Court looks at the rule without any deference and reaches its own conclusion as to the rule/interpretation of the statute. Basically, if the court thinks it's wrong they get to say so.

There are valid policy issues for both sides -- I won't bore you with them. I very much side with the proposed change, but that's not to say the other side doesn't have valid points.

[hack]

I wonder if that's true. I mean, I understand that the founders very much wanted disinterested almost noblesse oblige politicians for the very reasons you state. My sense is that it didn't last particularly long -- perhaps as even as short as Jackson.

DJT certainly represents a significant change in some regards. And perhaps he represents the ultimate bottom in terms of the executive -- with Washington being the pinnacle in these terms. But when considering all levels of government I wonder if DJT is a shock to the system in terms of brazenly self-interested people holding power. I don't have the historical data to say one way or the other. Just literally wondering.

YMMV, but my visceral reaction is to resist the temptation to make broad conclusions so near an event -- so far from the historical outcome.

As far as the legislative process goes, the hope is now that massive self-interest, lobbies and the like balance the power and, if worse comes to worse, the voters check poor behavior/laws.

I still prefer it greatly to unaccountable, discretionary law-making. Warts and all (not saying you don't).

My argument would be that at least in the past they tried to hide it. Cheney gave himself plausible deniability when he facilitated for Halliburton. Enlisted people and institutions in creating cover. Trump sometimes acts as if he's hiding it, and at other times isn't. Although the plan was aborted, last week's attempt by Congress to reduce oversight over ethics counts as overt too. Holding six hearings for administration candidates not vetted in the agreed-on process is as well. I also think it's also very important to distinguish between corruption on behalf of a set of policies one thinks are for the greater good (Nixon) and self-enrichment. And then hidden self-enrichment and unhidden. Trump has already gone to that worst-possible level, save for he hasn't yet used the military, intelligence or security agencies against his enemies or for his own motives.

I agree that we don't want to be premature about it, at least specifically as pertains to corruption or the cleanliness of the legislative process. Still the best thing I've read was Runciman in LRB arguing that, yes, this is indeed how democracy ends. Just not any time soon. It's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process. The first cut was clearly long ago, and there have been many since.