Upcoming D v R challenges

There has been a trickle of state or federal level races pitting Democrat against Republican, which potentially serve as a barometer for how politics will actually play out on the ground over the next 18 months or so under the Trump Regime.

In my view, these races have shown two things.

1) Republicans beat Democrats even when all the available evidence strongly suggests that the Republican Party shouldn't even be allowed to exist by any logical analysis of democracy and free society, and the Republicans continue to try as hard as they can to hurt the largest number of people.

2) Democrats have a much stronger than expected showing, indicating that Republicans are on the run and a big change is a coming.

The fact that these two observations are both true and in total conflict with each other should worry you.

Anyway, there are some more races coming up and I thought you might like to know about them.

In Oklahoma, Democrats have already flipped two Republican districts this year, and now, Democrat Jacob Rosecrants was defeated in 2016 by the Republican incumbant (Scott Martin) in House District 46, by a pretty big margin (60:40). But practice makes perfect, and Rosecrants is running again for the same seat in a general election called for September 12.

In Mississippi, Republicans have a super majority in the House, which means they are able to inflict the maximum possible damage that body can manage. Democratic candidate Kathryn Rehner is running in a special election, in House District 102. The Republican incumbent in that district left office to become mayor of Hattiesburg. Rehner is a social worker who is strong on education, and has explicitly stepped up to stop Trump. In the election, Republican Barker won by neary 3/4ths, so you can regard this as a strong Republican district.

New Hampshire has a somewhat unusual legislature. First, it is called "The General Court." Second, it is huge, one of the largest legislative bodies in the world. There are 400 members in the House of Representatives (Note: New Hampshire is so small, to put it on a postage stamp they have to blow it up first!) a given "district" may be represented by multiple individuals. Anyway, there are some five races open, some were held by Democrats, some by Republicans. So, the relevant outcome here will be more of a differential breakdown before and after. There may also be one state Senate seat open in NH as well.

There are two Democrats running to flip Republican seats in Florida, and apparently the Republicans are pouring money into these races. Annette Taddeo is running for Senate District 40. She had earlier been defeated for a house seat, and is the chair of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party. She is running against Republican Jose Felix Diaz, and independent Christian “He-Man” Schlaerth. The seat is open because incumbent Republican Frank Artiles was forced to resign because he was too much of a Trumpish asshole. The politics here are uncertain and this may be a close race. Clinton beat Trump here by 17 points, but Rubio beat Murphy (but by only 4 points). I can't tell if this He-Man dude is a spoiler and if so, for which party . He is an academic who gets low ratings on Rate my Professor (which may be meaningless). He appears to be a joke candidate, and may not be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, in the Florida House, Gabriela Mayaudon, running against Republican candidate Daniel Perez.

In South Carolina, Rosalyn Henderson Myers is running in House District 31 against Republicvan Michael Fowler, each trying to replace a Democrat who resigned citing health issues.

More like this

In the Netherlands the general opinion is that you are behaving bizarre by your general attitude of mutual internal enmity. You don´t talk with each other but kill each other with words. Have fun.

By Gerrit Bogaers (not verified) on 02 Sep 2017 #permalink

Gerrit ~ So true. It's nice to see your observation from another Country.

By WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot (not verified) on 02 Sep 2017 #permalink

#1: You in the Netherlands seem to have missed the important point that there is a battle of ideas and concepts going in the U.S. which, unfortunately for you has consequences for more countries than our own.

By Tyvor Winn (not verified) on 02 Sep 2017 #permalink

“...Republicans continue to try as hard as they can to hurt the largest number of people.” There is a certainly a pattern of Republican behavior which presents as a combination of cruelty, lack of empathy, sadism, and/or general sociopathy. Trump has decided to pull the plug on DACA. There is no evidence that he has a scintilla of empathy for the potential results of this cruel decision. Hundreds of thousands of young people who are culturally American are going to be terrorized and cruelly punished... for what? The American economy is going to be damaged in a senseless act of cruelty in order to coddle a cruel base represented in the media by people like Stephen Miller, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Sebastian Gorka, Jeffrey Lord, Steve Bannon, Jack Kingston, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Hugh Hewitt, Jason Miller, Kellyanne Conway,Kayleigh McEnany...a group of people who smile as they inflict pain and who appear to be inhibited from or incapable of common human decency for beings who are not of their tribe or family. These are people who do not recognize cruelty as pathological but instead have found a way to advance their own interests with it.

#1 GB

Geert Wilders.

#5: Logically it is hard to reach any other conclusion than yours. Emotionally, though, it's still hard for me to believe the American electorate can actually believe that the modern GOP candidates have an agenda that is good for the country and supports what are supposed to be our ideals. It is a sad thing that candidates' policies that are illogical, cruel, and unfair can muster enough votes to win elections at all levels -- even attracting many of the same people who have been and will continue to be hurt by the GOP.

Truly, fantasy trumps reality these days.

By Tyvor Winn (not verified) on 05 Sep 2017 #permalink

The DREAM act never passed. There is no law which allows illegal aliens to stay in the country, no matter their age.

President Obama said he would defer deportation, but this was an executive order. This executive order was probably unconstitutional, because the executive branch exists to execute the laws of Congress, and no law allowing illegal alien minors who were brought to this country illegally was ever passed by Congress.

Now, by executive order, DACA is gone and Congress has 6 months to either pass a law allowing those who President Obama deferred deportation for to stay, or not pass a law allowing them to stay. It is up to Congress.

Whether it is mean or not is really not relevant.

The question is what is the law?

Personally, I don't think that unwinding an unconstitutional executive order to NOT enforce the laws actually passed by Congress is a bad thing - no matter how mean it sounds.

The only way to fix this is for Congress to pass a law (or not).

It is really kind of nice of Trump to give Congress six months to attempt to deal with this mess, which was created by President Obama.

It is never a good idea for the executive branch to just willy nilly decide NOT to execute a law.

Our ideals are that Congress passes laws, laws like don't sneak into our country or you will be deported if caught - and the President executes those laws. Those are our ideals.

If enough people think that is mean - they should really get the law changed.

" laws like don’t sneak into our country or you will be deported if caught"

Of course what the racists neglect to say is that the children in question did not "sneak into" the country.

But the time when we could expect honest discussion from the right is long gone -- it's habitual liars and racists like rickA who speak for the right now.

Whelp, how to get yourself a handle on the situation to begin with? I mean some folks say, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." Course not literally the case for all them what's concerned. (You know, gotta say that 'cause some folks can't handle situations 'less they're all full of steely rectitude and self-importance for order, authority, and obedience -- 'specially obedience to them sly, high-up few and their happy pals and kinfolk.)

Now, I am not one of your slick, big city lawyer types, but I kinda like to think of that there border as what they call an 'easement' dee-fack-tow like. But that's just yours truly talkin' out of turn again. :-)

I guess it kinda reminds me of this other story in some sort of way, only writ large (what some special folks would call bigly):

Guess it all depends on how you picturize fairness from way up there on high.

Or not.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 05 Sep 2017 #permalink

>the children in question did not “sneak into” the country.

They entered illegally without sneaking in but in the open, is even worse.

These Penn State lawyers present an interesting argument. Trump could use this if he can't get tax reform passed. He could just issue a memo saying he wouldn't prosecute people who paid taxes at level X.

Christ mikeN, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Why couldn't he do that and call it prosecutorial discretion?

It will be interesting to see what arguments the various state attorney generals come up with in their lawsuit against Trump's action. How will they argue he must provide work authorization not provided by Congress, and protection from deportation?

MikeN #17:

I agree.

The very grounds Obama used to support his executive action prove that it can be undone by executive action.

There is no standing.

Dean's link above (#10) relies on prosecutorial discretion. But Trump can also change the priority of prosecutors (if he wants).

Case dismissed!

Dean's link was to an argument that Obama's order is valid, which was split 4-4 at the Supreme Court.

Going from there to say Trump's order is invalid is a big stretch.
First glance, they appear to be saying 'This is bad for the country.'