mtutiger

A couple of things. 1) Even beyond knowing what will happen four years from now, there's a pretty established pattern of what tends to happen in Midterm elections, regardless of economic conditions: Elected (or Reelected) candidate overreaches, loses their honeymoon level of popularity then subsequently takes it in the shorts in the Midterms. The two exceptions I can remember are: Bill Clinton's Second Midterm, Impeachment Backlash Joe Biden's Midterm, combination of ****ty candidates and Roe backlash Nobody should be surprised if this happens to DJT again in his second term. 2) This election is the last time Donald Trump will be on a ballot.... some of the trends, particularly with Latino voters, may have a degree of permanence to them, but it remains a fact that in downballot races almost everywhere, Democratic candidates overperformed in this election. And that is at least in some in part due to low propensity voters who showed up, checked the box for DJT, and then proceeded to leave everything black and walked back out of the booth. All of this is to say that after 2020 and 2024, it's pretty clear that DJT comes with his own impacts as a candidate that aren't necessarily replicable without him on a ballot. We need to keep that in mind when we think about future elections IMO

Trump apparently plucked his next Secretary of Defense from the Fox and Friends couch. Truly idiocracy-esque

He'd be hard at work trying to nullify American votes. Just like last time

Michigan has vouchers and I would move back in a heartbeat.... I just don't think it's good policy and, contrary to what you are saying, there are clear winners and losers. It's benefits are not universal.

If you live in a rural corner of the state that doesn't have easy access to a charter school, you are pretty much at a disadvantage to someone who lives in suburban Indianapolis or Fort Wayne or wherever because you are unlikely to avail yourself of a voucher if you live a significant distance from a charter school. Or if you are Catholic and live in a town that is predominantly Lutheran (like I was growing up) The parents of kids that would avail themselves of a voucher in that situation would also take tax dollars out of their community, which rural communities rely heavily on as employers, which in turn harms everyone else who isn't so lucky as to have that opportunity readily available to them. I get why vouchers are appealing and do not doubt that the can be helpful to those who are able to avail themselves of them. But I'm just not going to pretend that they are equally beneficial to everyone, because they simply aren't.

So, we suck tax money out of the public school system, in some cases even sending it outside of the community that the student resides in... but don't worry, if you aren't lucky enough to get a voucher, "we have public schools for the public" Incredible stuff.

Even setting aside the Separation of Church and State issue, if you're in a town that is 65+% LCMS, they have the only parochial school in town and you are Catholic, doesn't that seem like a bit of an issue? Not a hypothetical either, this was my own life experience

That all sounds great for the voucher recipients.... How about everyone else?

I am from the Thumb.... it was a good place to grow up, but I'm glad that I grew up when I did. Things are a lot harder for local school districts now than they were 15-20 years ago. School consolidation is another big issue.... some of that may be necessary to a degree just due to declining populations, but it's still a drag on outcomes. Voucher proponents never really address areas like the one I grew up in.... to the extent they have benefits, it tends to go toward people in higher density populated areas at the expense of those in Rural America.

2024 Kentucky Amendment 2 Vouchers were on the ballot in Kentucky last week.... same ballot as Donald Trump. Result: 65-35% against, losing every county in Kentucky, all but one county a double digit margin.

I've maintained it for a while, but if Democrats were serious about making inroads in rural America, vouchers would be something they should use as a wedge. Though the suburban nature of the party complicates that a bit.

Conversely, what do you say to the kids who live in places like I grew up in (rural, 30 miles from the nearest city of significance, school district one of the largest employers in town) where voucher dollars suck money out of the local school systems and subsequently lower the quality for everyone not lucky enough to have the opportunity to get into a charter school? I understand the pros of vouchers, but let's not pretend that their impacts play out as a net plus for everyone in society.

People were pissed off at Joe Biden and not motivated to show up? Particularly in states like New York and Illinois which weren't competitive? It's like you aren't even bothering to read my posts lol

Humphrey is the closest corollary to this election, and we saw how that turned out (ie. not well for Humphrey) My pushback on Tigeraholic here though isn't so much that Harris was a uniquely strong candidate... I think she ran a better race that I expected, but she was far from the platonic ideal candidate. But again, this all went down 107 days before the election.... chances are none of the alternatives wanted anything to do with running in the first place given that there was this little time left. And the election, how it played out and what drove the median voter, really made clear that this thing was going to be a slog no matter who would have replaced Biden. And I would add again that Biden staffers are among the least credible people to be making comments about this right now. To the extent that we are in this situation, their boss bears a lot of responsibility for not announcing sometime in late 2023 that he was going to withdraw. Frankly, anything they say off the record to media outlets oughta be taken with an entire bottle of Morton's salt.

Even setting aside the violence of J6, given the fact that Trump worked so hard to nullify the votes of millions of people during the last election tells you everything you need to know. But hey, as Archie said, "we need to give him a chance..." right?

I've noticed most of the Tigers set worth following has been migrating over, so I'll be shortly

Maybe I shouldn't feed the troll, but I kinda want to pivot back to Archie's comment yesterday about "giving him a chance".... honestly, despite the actual election result, I think your position is probably closer to the median position than most. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of people who would agree with you on the first three sentences, yet ultimately voted for Trump anyway (people have different calculations, for better or worse) All of this is to say that, as Trump has won the election... the onus on him, not the greater population, to prove it. And yeah, when he selects someone as unqualified as Kristi Noem to a position like HHS Secretary, it shouldn't exactly come as a shock to people that it's going to get criticized.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently... Does that qualify me to serve in Trump's cabinet?

Trump picks Kristi Noem to serve as his Homeland Security secretary Not exactly clear what qualifies Kristi for this role....

https://x.com/AndrewRestuccia/status/1856119452250919133 Mike Waltz tapped for NSA... Not sure how many more golden tickets they can afford out of the House without creating some short term math issues

The margins in the Florida House and Senate are significantly larger than the 119th Congress will be. And have been ever since Ronny D showed up in Tallahassee. If we were talking about a 20 seat majority, I'd be singing a different tune...

Can't really put anything past them, but based on what has been publicly reported, I'd be surprised if they nuked it.

I don't believe they could use the reconciliation process to eliminate an entire federal department.