As always, aggregates of multiple polls are usually a good way to go.
Also House Freedom Caucus member Tom Garrett, who in successive days last week:
-Had his chief of staff resign abruptly without reason
-Gave a weird, rambly “I’m staying in this race” speech the next day that he called a major announcement
-Has had whispers about his vulnerability here in Virginia that have gotten louder…
…today announced he’s not going to seek re-election. Seat is in Trump country, mostly, but after Novermber, 2017 it’s not totally safe, either.
Timex
3124
All the freedom caucus guys are basically trash.
I disagree. I don’t much like their underlying assumptions, which have the usual far-right “personal responsibility” foundation that doesn’t take into account the real world situations that exist because of decades of racism, misogyny, and all sorts of discrimination. But they also tend to stand up to big money and corporate influence, and want to reform political processes that have become warped over the years. I may not agree with their foundational beliefs but they do tend to stick to them.
I know this largely because my own representative is Justin Amash, who I never voted for due to those fundamental disagreements mentioned above, but I’ve done my research into how he conducts his business as a representative. Very little in the way of big-donor dark money, lots of votes against privacy invasions and such, no support for corporate welfare, constantly pushing back against House leadership when they aren’t following their own rules or overstepping constitutional bounds.
The Freedom Caucus isn’t great by any means and I can’t imagine I’d vote for any of them, but I think calling them “trash” is going too far. We should reserve that label (and worse) for those in the pockets of their donors, the abusers and harassers, and the outright racists. (Some of whom might be in the Freedom Caucus, I know, but it’s certainly not the whole group.)
Yes, Amash took quite the stand and stood up to big money.
Remind me again how he voted on Paul Ryan’s gigantic tax cut to corporations?
He explained his vote. I don’t agree with it, largely because I think he put too little weight on how much benefit accrued to the rich at the expense of the poor, but there is logic to it.
Ah, well, I should know better than to try to point out that calling people names isn’t helping. Tried that before, didn’t help much then either.
LMN8R
3129
Piece of shit republicans don’t get a pass because they attempt a slight semblance of irrational “logic” to defend their abhorrent votes.
Timex
3130
Amash is a piece of shit too. His support for a bill that exploded the deficit highlighted the hypocrisy of his deficit hawk talk.
Even when the freedom caucus douchebags stuck to their “principles”, those principles are essentially just a refusal to acknowledge reality, and just throw tantrums instead of governing.
The freedom caucus is a bunch of trash.
+2 for trash, though I appreciate @ineffablebob sharing his thoughts as well.
The HFC seems to be using the post-2000 McCain Maverick Handbook. Threaten to vote against legislation put up by the Speaker, get hailed publicly for how you stand on principle and not for party…and then wrangle some concessions and fall into line.
Whether or not the Democrats have any chance of flipping the House in November is a question that will come into more clarity in the next 24 hours or so. Keep an eye on those three California house districts, where the state’s failed experiment in election law overhaul half-measures that resulted in a jungle primary. Those three are the 39th, the 48th, and the 49th. Democrats could get shut out in all three, despite all three being districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Harry correctly points out that California is technically a “Top two” and not a full jungle primary.
In any event, I totally get the dissatisfaction with first past the post (though I think that it’s a bit overstated as a bogeyman), but top two has proven to be not a good solution. Either go all the way with ranked voting, or just go back to a traditional primary…especially now that CA does same-day voter registration.
rowe33
3135
Given our current President, I don’t think our population as a whole is smart enough for ranked voting. It would probably end up a huge clusterfuck of people screwing up their ballots somehow.
This top two system isn’t any better, at least in the few trials since it became law. California conservatives had no voting choices in the 2016 Senate election statewide. And now the top two may shut out Democrats in left-leaning districts.
And again – this may be a mis-read by me – but a lot of it seems predicated on people taking at face value the often-peddled idea that FPTP is the main reason we have only two parties, which is a partial (if that) truth.
CraigM
3137
It is objectively better than FPTP though. Our current system not only makes extreme polarity possible, it ensures it. It prevents any real possibility for third parties to emerge, since winner take all FPTP disincentivises voting beyond the top two candidates.
California’s system steps towards, but fails miserably at, escaping this. It increases variance, and leads to the dumbest outcomes. It can be better, but it also can lead to fracturing leading to everyone being dissatisfied. Ranked choice voting would have been a requisite to actual improvement, but that’s not really in the interest of the two major parties.
The cynic in me sees the California experiment as one designed to visibly discredit real effectual reforms. I’m half joking with that. Only half.
rowe33
3138
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see ranked voting. I just have zero confidence that our nation’s voters could handle it. I also imagine that in every red state, we’d see really convoluted ballots that somehow favor the GOP. I have no doubt that they’d try to use any means possible to maintain power despite their minority position (and position on minorities) in future elections.
Again though (beating a dead horse) is that the fault of FPTP? Or is it because at both the state and federal level, the United States is unique among allied democracies in that it separates fully the executive branch from the legislative?
THAT, to me, is the biggest thing that precludes the rise of multiple parties. A separate executive branch with appointment power to the judicial branch pretty much forces a two-sided choice.
In the 45th, we have three good to very good Democratic candidates. It was a tough call voting on who should challenge Mimi Walters this fall.
Thraeg
3141
Yeah, I was relieved to see that there was no other Republican running, so I didn’t have to worry about strategically voting to avoid splitting too many ways.
LMN8R
3142
I haven’t been following California politics much recently. What big issues are at stake in the California primary? And how indicative is Primary turnout of the election turnout at the end of the year?
Meaning, could Democrats be ignoring the primaries because they don’t care which Democratic candidate wins, even if they fully intend to vote in the midterms? Or does it not usually turn out that way?
