gehringer_2

He's just seen that George Blaha is in the next 30 yrs of his future.

well, maybe for the costume designers, not so much some of those folks filling them.

I think the big question goes back to the question Edman and I posted about, which is: would or could the House elect a new speaker if the speaker's party loses the majority during the session? It the membership is commitment to a rule where they won't make a change, that's a very different dynamic than if the out party believes it will just replace whoever is there if they win a special election somewhere. In the first case it's relatively easy to imagine a block of as many as 300 deciding a non-partisan speaker might be best for all concerned, in the latter case, I wouldn't see it happening.

and of course the actuarial table never loses in the end. For Trump (or Biden!) 2 more yrs could easily end up being more than the remaining heartbeats alloted.

Yes - the most a third party can do is push an item onto the agenda for the other two - i.e. Perot and trade, which isn't nothing, but it will never be a win either.

I would guess that for many moderate conservatives - Lincoln project types, there will still be the question of whether anyone who collaborated can be trusted or supported again, so while some of those people would be willing to come back, they may only do it new generation of a candidates. I would think guys like Cruz who would try to slide back into their old forms would still be rejected.

Possibley more on this. There is also reference in the House Practice manual ( House Practice manual Ch 34 ) to a source called "Deschler's Precedents" ( link ) which states the Speaker can be removed by the will of House. In the final analysis, the Consitution gives each House the right make its rules, and ultimately any rule can be changed by majority vote. Of course there are a lot things where precedent is extremely powerful and has vanishingly little probability of being overturned, but I would never say 'never' on an absolute basis.

I understand the logic, and will be happy if it's true, but don't forget that Trump won the primaries in 2016 without the party backing him, though he was getting a big boost from Fox. The cult of personality guys can have a lot of staying power - look at Berlusconi in Italy (and maybe Netanyahu is moving into this class), he just kept coming back when he shoud have been dead and buried.

If Fox annoints someone they might have a shot, but I'm struggling to think of what issues or approaches a GOP candidate can offer that would distinguish him from the field in some way that didn't happen in 2016. The GOP still doesn't have anything in the way of a program to offer which is what left the race open to be a personality contest then. If it is again, Trump still has the advantage. I suppose a GOP candidate could run in the primaries on a national abortion ban platform and pull enough evangelicals that it might get him through the primaries, but it would seem to be a disastrous course for winning the general election.

this could be spot on.

I would think it depends on whether they find leadership that can manage it - and I doubt a liar like McCarthy is a guy they can all have confidence in. If they hold it together, it's all downside for the Dems. If they devolve into a clownshow, not so much!

my dvr never blinks!

remember, never count your picks before they hatch.

they probably vetted the language of each question asked with legal. And TBF, maybe there are some procedural issues unique to the college environ - for instance how many of the witnesses were minors, did they need advocates before they could be spoken to, etc? The U might have internal policies on some of this stuff a regular PD wouldn't, that's one reason they run their own depts after all. And of course if a lot of 'witnesses' had lawyered up already you end up with negotiations on interviews that have to play out before you can write off who is uncooperative etc.

does anyone know what the most closely divided US House in history was?

Can open warfare between the Trumps and the Murdochs be bad for America? Maybe, but it would still be fun to watch.

no, the UMDPSS doesn't quite the match the investigative prowess of the FBI.

NFL coaches never cease to amaze. How can a guy can end up an NFL football coach and not understand what a 4 point lead with 20 seconds left and your offense standing in their own end zone means you should do.

It's always the high piont of a Sunday to have read the Lions' game thread up through about the end of the 1st half of any given game, then go do some chore that takes until the game over, and check back to see that the Lions actually won the game....

I apparently threw a tantrum in the barber shop upon seeing the results of having been given a brushcut when I was about 5. First and only time in over 60 years my hair (or what little is now left of it) was ever that short. 🧑‍🦱

I know what you mean, but a 'presence' isn't necessarily a 'force' in the sense of producing concrete change. That is my whole beef with the hypersensitivity to language and identity. It has a place as far as it goes, but it doesn't do one damn thing for the 12yr old kid on the corner of Linwood an Oakman trying to make sense of his possible futures.

I think "wokism", "grooming", "CRT" "Socialism", are all just interchangeable shorthands for the people who don't like cultural change to hang a tag on what they feel they are against. The specifics of each term have some currency in the debates between the politically active, but probably don't signify much of anything to the rank and file right wing voter - other than that they are all samples from the same pot of stew they want no part of. The cultural values voter *feels* his cultural (or religious) bearings being eroded, the language is not meant for the precise service of argument but a charged one of emotion.

The GOP might come up with something like requiring a pledge not to run 3rd party as a requirement to admission to primary debates. Of course, not clear how the GOP could enforce that, and lying his way onto the stage would be nothing out of character for Trump.

some people have noted that even if the GOP coalesces around someone new, Trump is likely to run 3rd party, which probably gives the Dems 400 EV. But even if he doesn't, for the foreseeable future elections are all going to turn on turn-out, because no-one's mind is being changed by anything in the US today, and there just isn't any doubt that a GOP without Trump on the ballot is going to be a less enthusiastic GOP, which means a lower turn-out GOP. But of course it cuts both ways, even with all the 'threat to Democracy' drumbeat on the D side, it looks like 2022 total turnout will be lower than 2018 was - ergo the loss of the House seats. Just as Trump on the ballot drives GOP turnout, Trump out of office reduces the perceived theat that drives D turnout. The good new for the Dems is the trend of more young people voting, even as limited as it is.

The problem for guys like Reyes and Harold who are fairly average for utility guys is just that they need the roster spots because of the long term injured they have and utlity players are fairly fungible - you will be able to find them again later once you get your 60's back on the 60 and you've brought in the primarly pieces you have decided to pursue.