In Oklahoma, not Arizona, what does it matter?

Democrats may soon get tired of all the winning:

Democrat Jacob Rosecrants, a teacher with a passion for public education, won this special election to the Oklahoma state House 60-40 percent, becoming the first Democrat to win this district since 2012. He’ll replace Scott Martin, an Oklahoma Republican who actually didn’t resign because of a scandal (unlike several of his colleagues already this year). Trump won this district 52-41 percent last fall, making this win a 31-point swing toward the Democrat. What’s more, Rosecrants himself ran for this same seat and lost in 2016 … by the same 60-40 margin he won by on Tuesday.

In the special elections for Congress and Statehouses, Dems are up an average of 13% since 2016. We need to go up by about 9% to take the House of Representatives. We need to run everywhere.

Why not give some money that is spread equally among all the eventual Democratic nominees in all House districts currently held by Republicans?

Goal Thermometer






111 replies
  1. 1
    The Moar You Know says:

    Doug, I like how you’re keeping your eyes on the prize. It’s all about money, and we have a lot of catching up to do.

    ReplyReply
  2. 2
    SFAW says:

    Holy shit. Oklahoma? The state that sends that moran Inhofe to the Senate every six years? Hot damn..

    The worst thing about this is that I may need to adjust my pessimism scale. And if that’s the worst thing, I’m OK with it, and hoping for more “worst things” like that.

    Hot damn

    ReplyReply
  3. 3
    The Moar You Know says:

    Just need to vent. Kind of pissed. Had a guy running here against Rocky Chavez (CA state rep, GOP, unchallenged). Challenger probably could have made it work. Two weeks ago he bailed out of the race and is now running for CA Sec State, which he cannot win (he has zero previous political experience, having driven ambulances beforehand). I suspect he was bought off. I was going to run in the Chavez race to at least have it not go unchallenged, and although I’m sure that it’s still possible to pull papers, it is not possible to set up any kind of infrastructure in the amount of time left in order to mount any credible challenge at all. Smacks of ratfucking.

    Next cycle I pull the fucking papers and do the prepwork even if Obama’s running for the seat.

    ReplyReply
  4. 4
    Marmot says:

    Yes!

    Thanks for posting this. We’ve been short of good news for a long while.

    Hope this shows the naysayers that it’s foolish to urge Dems to leave red states (or to condemn everyone in a red state for every Repub travesty because “Dems with a real conscience should leave argle bargle!”).

    ReplyReply
  5. 5
  6. 6
    Marmot says:

    @The Moar You Know: I like that spirit.

    ReplyReply
  7. 7
    tobie says:

    OT: Graham, Cassidy and Heller are now talking about reviving their last proposal for an Obamacare fix. I think all the talk of Medicare for All roused them into action. Couldn’t we have waited till the Sept 30 deadline for all GOP reconciliation maneuvers had passed? Now we face losing Obamacare. Thanks, Wilmer.

    ReplyReply
  8. 8
    Peale says:

    @The Moar You Know: If you can put in the papers, put in the papers. We’ll figure out the rest.

    ReplyReply
  9. 9
    jl says:

    And, some encouraging signs that the bogus voting fraud commission will collapse into nothing. Saw news yesterday that Kobach’s presentation on the bogus charges of voter registration fraud in NH was so bad that even the voter suppression forces on the commission felt they had to bash it. I suppose to maintain some shred of credibility going forward.

    Now, today, Kobach says the commission may well expire with no recommendations.
    Commenter Kay may have been right yesterday in saying that it is stupidity all the way down.

    We all might get to vote and have our votes counted next year. Yay!

    Kobach: ‘High Possibility’ Commission Won’t Make Any Recommendations
    TPM
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/n.....mendations

    ReplyReply
  10. 10
    Sab says:

    Absolutely totally off topic.

    Reading Hillary’s book. She is angry, but still totally sensible and focused. Methodists are weird. So involved in their religion.No anger allowed.

    ReplyReply
  11. 11
    randy khan says:

    Alternatively, if you want to contribute to an important election that’s happening sooner, here’s a link to contribute to the Virginia House of Delegates races. There are 88 Democrats running for the House of Delegates this year (which is a big increase from previous years, when they left a lot of seats uncontested), about half women – which is a first – and with the highest number of LGBT candidates ever. I don’t know if they have a chance to gain control of the House of Delegates this year, as the Republicans have a pretty hefty majority, but gaining seats would be very helpful towards the goal of getting control before the next round of redistricting.

    Virginia House of Delegates contribution page

    Contributions for the statewide races also would be helpful – it’s critical to have a Democratic governor, in particular, as Terry Mac has been a firewall against Republican craziness and Ralph Northam would do the same.

    ReplyReply
  12. 12
    japa21 says:

    @jl: Of course they may not make any recommendations. They are full of shit and they know it. The only honest, verifiable recommendations they could make would be in get rid of voter ID, expand early voting, make registration automatic, make sure all precincts have the same ratio of voting machines (or whatever) to voter, etc. And if all those recommendations were actually put into place, the GOP is dead.

    I would add that gerrymandering needs to go, but I don’t think that would fall under this commission.

    ReplyReply
  13. 13
    Another Scott says:

    @The Moar You Know: Even if you can’t win this time, it might make the battle easier next time. IIRC, most candidates don’t win the first time. Someone needs to step up or the Teabaggers will keep winning.

    Think about it some more. :-)

    Good luck!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  14. 14
    Dave L says:

    Thanks for the Act Blue link! The House is what matters in 2018, and I’d been looking for a way to focus my donations. We can do this. We have to do this.

    ReplyReply
  15. 15
    low-tech cyclist says:

    Hey, I hear there are a whole bunch more state legislative races this year! (Like, just 55 days from now!) Why, there’s 100 of them in Virginia alone! Maybe we could raise some money for Dems challenging GOP incumbents in the Virginia House of Delegates?

    I should point out that the need is much more time-sensitive than the 2018 House races.

    ReplyReply
  16. 16
    The Moar You Know says:

    Everyone: thank you. I will be doing some investigating into whether this is still an option or not. Would be worth just for voters being able to see a “D” running for the spot if nothing else. Nobody has for years.

    I’m pretty disturbed by Major’s dropping out and running against a SoS who is a Dem, has run clean elections and in a state where we don’t use touchscreen voting machines. There are shenanigans afoot here.

    ReplyReply
  17. 17
    CaseyL says:

    @The Moar You Know: File the papers! I’m pretty sure you can count on us for help. What an exciting thing it would be, to have a BJer in office!

    ReplyReply
  18. 18
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @The Moar You Know: @DougJ: Hear, hear! 2018 first.

    @Sab: On the O’Bros’ podcast, she was relaxed and concise and a little bit nerdy. It was a good format for her. I’m hoping she comes across the same way on TRMS coming up. I hear in the book she goes after that asshole Matt Lauer for that disgraceful performance on that “national security forum, or whatever they called it. Then this morning she had to sit with that smarmy douche.

    She also kept hammering the importance of 2018.

    ReplyReply
  19. 19
    GregB says:

    The Democrats flipped a NH House seat that was held by the GOP-er who stepped down after it was revealed he was the man behind an anti-woman, pro-sexual assault page on Reddit.

    The voting district was Trumpy.

    ReplyReply
  20. 20
    tobie says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    O’Bros’ podcast

    Sorry…I don’t get this shorthand. Can you clarify whose podcast? Thanks.

    ReplyReply
  21. 21
    Jeffro says:

    @randy khan: This is fantastic, RK – thanks from this NoVA voter!

    Also, fuck Kris Kobach with a rusty chainsaw.

    ReplyReply
  22. 22
    Raoul says:

    @CaseyL: Yep, I’m in for a donation if Moar runs! I’m sure others would be too.

    ReplyReply
  23. 23
    trollhattan says:

    From Lemieux, shitty news from our shitty Supreme Court with its newly minted/stolen Republican majority.

    In two orders, with all of the conservative Republican-appointed Justices voting in favor and all the liberal Democratic-appointed Justices opposed, the Supreme Court put on hold a lower court order for Texas to redraw congressional and state house district lines to cure voting rights problems. The lower court had found that some of the districts were drawn with a racially discriminatory intent, some were drawn with a racially discriminatory effect, and some were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Had the lower court order been put into effect, there would have been some new districts (which would have benefitted Democratic and minority voters in Texas) for the 2018 elections. Now, it is unlikely that such a remedy could be in place before 2020, the last elections before the next round of redistricting.

    Those dreaming of a purple-to-blue Texas can stop.

    ReplyReply
  24. 24
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @tobie: Pod Save America– a podcast done by three or four ex-Obama staffers. They interviewed HRC in Chappaqua and released it yesterday. Forty-five minutes and I was impressed, but I liked her before.

    ReplyReply
  25. 25
    Another Scott says:

    @tobie: I assume he means “The Obama Bros” on Pod Save America. The latest installment is a conversation with HRC.

    HTH.

    [edit: A minute late again! ;-) ]

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  26. 26
    TenguPhule says:

    @trollhattan:

    In two orders, with all of the conservative Republican-appointed Justices voting in favor and all the liberal Democratic-appointed Justices opposed, the Supreme Court put on hold a lower court order for Texas to redraw congressional and state house district lines to cure voting rights problems.

    Mitch Mcconnell’s place in the tumbrel line just went way way up.

    ReplyReply
  27. 27
    sheila in nc says:

    Thanks for the title… I kind of like the Beatles…

    ReplyReply
  28. 28
    SFAW says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    To echo others: FILE PAPERS for this election anyway. Maybe ask Numbnuts (i.e., the guy who bailed) for infrastructure support, voter lists, etc. Tell him: “This seat can still be won, but not if you refuse to help” or something similar.
    .
    .
    [Waits a few minutes]
    .
    .
    .
    Are you still here reading this? Why the hell aren’t you out getting the requisite papers! Go! Now!

    Anyway, whatever you decide, you have our support.

    ReplyReply
  29. 29
    SFAW says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Mitch Mcconnell’s place in the tumbrel line just went way way up.

    Oh, bullshit. He was number 1 or 2 even before this happened. Can’t go “way up” from there.

    ReplyReply
  30. 30
    trollhattan says:

    @SFAW:
    It’s turtles, all the way up.

    ReplyReply
  31. 31
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Sab:
    So “Don’t get mad, get even” is a Methodist teaching? One learns something new every day.

    ReplyReply
  32. 32
    SFAW says:

    @trollhattan:

    It’s turtles, all the way up.

    Good one, thanks!

    ReplyReply
  33. 33
    Amir Khalid says:

    @jl:
    The phrase “damp squib” comes to mind.

    ReplyReply
  34. 34
    trollhattan says:

    O/T Canada’s unluckiest/luckiest coyote, or, “Why is my car overheating?”

    ReplyReply
  35. 35
    Doug! says:

    @sheila in nc:

    I love that song.

    ReplyReply
  36. 36
    sheila in nc says:

    @Doug!: Your posts give me excellent earworms.

    ReplyReply
  37. 37
    Jonny Scrum-half says:

    The change in votes in that district since 2016 sounds good, but I’m pretty underwhelmed by the fact that Democrats hadn’t won that district “since 2012.”

    ReplyReply
  38. 38
    Lapassionara says:

    @jl: I do not believe anything Kobach says. I saw a reference on Twitter to the Commission and Hatch Act violations. Not sure of the specifics, but maybe there will be some follow up on that issue.

    ReplyReply
  39. 39
    efgoldman says:

    @Lapassionara:

    maybe there will be some follow up on that issue.

    Not if the RWNJs have any say

    ReplyReply
  40. 40

    @tobie:
    They’ve been pushing for that since the day after ACA repeal failed. Hell, they were pushing for it before ACA repeal failed. Last I heard, there were three hard ‘no’s and four soft ‘no’s for anything that cut Medicaid, which Graham’s plan does. None of those votes are McCain, who was only a ‘no’ on the nebulous ‘throw it to the House’ plan. If McConnell says something, I’ll pay attention. Until then, this is wind.

    ReplyReply
  41. 41
    JMG says:

    @Jonny Scrum-half: New Hampshire has had a pretty pronounced out party does well in off-year elections trend since at least 2006. And elections there are close. One US House district has changed hands in four straight elections.

    ReplyReply
  42. 42
    James Powell says:

    We need to run everywhere.

    Never understood why this isn’t Rule One instead of a battle cry from the fringe – no disrespect to Doug! or this blog.

    ReplyReply
  43. 43
    TenguPhule says:

    @James Powell:

    Never understood why this isn’t Rule One

    The DNC is run and advised by idiots, that’s why.

    In order to run, candidates need money and a strong support network.

    ReplyReply
  44. 44
    Raoul says:

    @trollhattan: Those dreaming of actually working on a purple-to-blue Texas can stop keep on after it. Long term change is … long term!

    ReplyReply
  45. 45
    Kay says:

    Yay! A public education person. Democrats could BE the public education party. It’s wide open. There’s no one else.

    They already completely dominate healthcare. They could add education.

    It occurred to me the other day that conservatives have completely abandoned whole issues. There’s literally NO competition. Come on. They should be able to beat “nothing”.

    ReplyReply
  46. 46
    randy khan says:

    @low-tech cyclist:

    I couldn’t agree with you more.

    One thing that prompted my post with the link was that I attended a fundraiser last night in upper Northwest DC sponsored by the chair of the Virginia House Democratic Caucus, Charniele Herring. (Full disclosure: I’ve known her since she was in college, but she’s a really strong progressive voice in Richmond.) She was reaching out to DC to help with Virginia (and got a pretty high-powered turnout, including two DNC members and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who gave a pretty bracing talk on why *she* cared about Virginia). The Virginia Democrats are really pushing hard for this election, and they need all the help they can get, as Rep. Norton would tell you (because she sure told us).

    ReplyReply
  47. 47
    tobie says:

    @Another Scott: @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Cool! Mega-listening pleasure while on the treadmill.

    ReplyReply
  48. 48
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    A public education person. Democrats could BE the public education party. It’s wide open. There’s no one else.

    Republicans have gone all in on school vouchers. Granted, its a horrible position but its still a position.

    ReplyReply
  49. 49
    joel hanes says:

    @TenguPhule:

    The DNC is run and advised by idiots, that’s why.

    The DNC and the DCCC and the DSCC are caught between a rock and a hard place.

    In order to run, candidates need money and a strong support network.

    And a strong support network costs money; money all the time, money during non-election years, money to spend in districts in which we seldom win. And where is that money to come from?

    The Rs have purchased the support of the wealthy by fantastically enriching them.
    The unions are extinct as a source of large-scale continual political funding.
    The Dem activist base gives as much as it can, and cannot match the R warchest

    When the Dems turn to the other available source of major funding, corporate donations, they alienate much of their base.
    When the Dems fail to do (with much less money) what the Rs do with the largesse of the Scaifes and Mellons and duPonts and Mercers and DeVos and Adelson and … they are derided as clueless.

    ReplyReply
  50. 50
    Miss Bianca says:

    @James Powell: Well, one-party rule is a thing out here in the sticks. As Democrats in a “Republicans only” community, looking at a recall effort of the sane Republicans we helped elect as county commissioners by a fringe group of Republicans who call themselves “the Patriots” (I guess the Tea Party is passe, or something), we could either try to run Democrats in this mess, and boost the probability that RWNJs get elected and we go back to (no) business as usual here, or we pitch in to support the sane Republicans in the conviction that this will ultimately serve our interests better. Democrats have no chance of getting elected here, and their presence in any race is going to be that of a spoiler. Not saying that “run Democrats everywhere” isn’t a good idea in theory, it just turns out that practice it’s a little more problematic.

    ReplyReply
  51. 51
    geg6 says:

    @Sab:

    My cousin is a retired Methodist minister. She’s plenty angry these days.

    ReplyReply
  52. 52
    TenguPhule says:

    @joel hanes:

    When the Dems fail to do (with much less money) what the Rs do with the largesse of the Scaifes and Mellons and duPonts and Mercers and DeVos and Adelson and … they are derided as clueless.

    When the DNC and DCCC and yes, even Hillary was guilty of this, are paying overpriced consultants who are complete fucking idiots that tell them stupid shit and who are never ever fucking fired or blackballed or otherwise suffer any consequences for being parasitic grifters.

    ReplyReply
  53. 53
    japa21 says:

    @joel hanes:

    When the Dems turn to the other available source of major funding, corporate donations, they alienate much of their base

    And until a good portion of the base stops equating receiving money from and being a toady to, this will continue.

    ReplyReply
  54. 54
    Kay says:

    This may give my fellow citizens way too much credit but couldn’t Democrats run as kind of the PRACTICAL Party?

    Handle the stuff conservatives sneer at- healthcare, public education, the mechanics and systems of voting, roads-ya know, the essentials. The thing about Trump’s wall is it’s dumb and expensive and impractical. The same with his voting commission, who are actually getting paid to invent problems and doing even a bad job fixing the problems they invent.

    Is that too boring? Probably, and it won’t get any political media coverage but it’s solid on its own merits and it just might work!

    My legal practice is like that- I’m the practical lawyer. I try to make their lives easier- more orderly and predictable. It’s a real niche, I’m telling you. Grossly under-rated. Let Trump be the flash and glitz.

    ReplyReply
  55. 55
    japa21 says:

    @Miss Bianca: Good point. Not all Republicans, particularly on a local level, are insane wingnuts. Does running a sure-lose candidate make sense if it gives the insane wingnut more of a chance? Or does running a candidate and hoping the GOP splits the vote enough to squeak a Dem victory make sense? Sometimes it can be a very close call.

    ReplyReply
  56. 56
    JMG says:

    @japa21: Parties should try to run candidates in every election even if those candidates are going to get smoked. For one thing, it’s a socialization process in one-party areas to let voters know the other party is just folks like them and to put forth ideas that’re otherwise unable to penetrate the information bubble. For another, you never know.

    ReplyReply
  57. 57
    japa21 says:

    @Kay: Two things.
    1. It is boring, but it is also necessary. The problem is explaining how you are going to do something can cause people to tune out. People have a short attention span, and stop listening after a while. Not to say the Dems can’t be the practical party, but they also have to have some zing.

    2. Usually when I read a thread, I don’t read the nym of the person making comments. I never have to see yours. You have a very distinct writing style, which I love, that allows me to ID Kay comments rather quickly. Like many others, I wish you would be a front pager, but I totally respect anything you do or don’t do in that regards. You have totally earned my respect over the last few years.

    ReplyReply
  58. 58
    japa21 says:

    @JMG: In general, I agree. But we do have to keep in mind the laws of unintended consequences. Specially in certain special elections, which is what Miss Bianca was referring to. Usually, the possible down side is not as clear cut. Not saying they shouldn’t run a Dem, but it does need to be taken into consideration.

    ReplyReply
  59. 59
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    Handle the stuff conservatives sneer at- healthcare, public education, the mechanics and systems of voting, roads-ya know, the essentials. The thing about Trump’s wall is it’s dumb and expensive and impractical. The same with his voting commission, who are actually getting paid to invent problems and doing even a bad job fixing the problems they invent.

    40+ million American voters apparently prefer sexy, dumb and impractical over boring competence.

    ReplyReply
  60. 60
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    Is that too boring? Probably, and it won’t get any political media coverage but it’s solid on its own merits and it just might work!

    But by default Democrats have been the competent party since 1996. The Republicans keep getting crazier, nastier and stupider but we still get no credit for being the almighty janitor of government.

    ReplyReply
  61. 61
    catclub says:

    @Kay:

    The thing about Trump’s wall is it’s dumb and expensive and impractical

    Reagan’s SDI was much worse [I think Reagan even wanted ‘an impenetrable wall.’], in terms of practicality and expense. George W Bush’s Iraq War II was much worse. So those things have always sold.

    also I agree with this: 40+ million American voters apparently prefer sexy, dumb and impractical over boring competence.

    ReplyReply
  62. 62
    TenguPhule says:

    Trump and Republicans promise to unveil tax cut details in two weeks.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    ReplyReply
  63. 63
    clay says:

    @Kay: I feel that in the last election, we DID run as the “practical party.” It’s hard to make that message heard over pie-in-the-sky promises and bold visions.

    (Hillary, for all of her detailed plans and proposals, wasn’t the candidate for Big Ideas last cycle. The Wall is stupid, extraordinarily so, but it is a big, bold idea.)

    Gore had the same problem, I think, so maybe this just isn’t possible when your party’s been in the White House for 8 years.

    So, I don’t think practicality and competence is enough. (Maybe it is for local races, but not nationally.). We need a Presidential candidate who can sell a clear, bold vision of the future — practicality can be a side benefit.).

    ReplyReply
  64. 64
    joel hanes says:

    @TenguPhule:

    never … suffer any consequences

    The support groups for Republicanism exhibit a much more severe case of this disease.
    (I think the Iron Law of Institutions is pretty inescapable in any large organization)
    And yet the Republicans win (recently, mostly by rigging the game).

    I agree with you that it’s a problem.
    I disagree that it’s the root problem.

    ReplyReply
  65. 65
    Formerly disgruntled in Oregon says:

    @trollhattan:

    Those dreaming of a purple-to-blue Texas can stop.

    That’s a ridiculous conclusion to an article about gerrymandering, which has no effect on statewide races, incl. President. We absolutely need to keep dreaming of (and working toward) a purple-to-blue Texas!

    ReplyReply
  66. 66
    Captain C says:

    @TenguPhule:

    40+ million American voters apparently prefer sexy, dumb and impractical over boring competence.

    As long as sexy, dumb, and impractical hates the right people.

    ReplyReply
  67. 67
    SgrAstar says:

    @The Moar You Know: Another consideration is that name recognition really helps. You run this year, you’ll probably lose. BUT, next cycle…you win. Another reason to sign up now: your efforts now will show proof of seriousness next time. ✊

    ReplyReply
  68. 68
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Oh my god– trump is just babbling about tax reform. We’re looking at a 15% corporate tax rate, lower for individuals, the rich will not benefit, we’re talking about jobs, and by jobs I mean companies.

    That’s not an exact quote, I left out the stuff about China, but I’m pretty sure those are all phrases he used, and I think I got the “substance” of his remarks, such as there was.

    OT: Ali Velshi says he said that the rich may pay more. I missed that.

    ReplyReply
  69. 69
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @clay: Mike Dukakis explicitly said it: “This is about competence, not ideology.” Gore was actually more of a Big Ideas guy than he was.

    ReplyReply
  70. 70
    catclub says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Oh my god– trump is just babbling about tax reform.

    I don’t have to listen to know that.

    ReplyReply
  71. 71
    Peale says:

    @TenguPhule: Yeah. I think 2016 and the past two mid terms have demonstrated that our voters really want charisma and emotional appeals and unfortunately when the emotional appeals being made are negative, they sit out. The GOP can be activated to run against non-voting immigrants and xenophobic threats, but our side doesn’t really care about those things all that much and will sit it out. We can’t continue to run on education policy (especially if that policy also is about testing and privatization – thanks Obama) unless we make it exciting and somehow appealing. “Not only will I ensure that every student has the current version of the latest textbook and the workbook necessary to do well on the standardized test, the book will be thick enough to use to beat immigrants to death if you don’t like them and will contain chapters on why women who have abortions are sluts and four sections on why its o.k. to shun gays” gets more votes for them and loses votes for us.

    ReplyReply
  72. 72
    randy khan says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Is there anyone who believes there are 218 votes in the House for a tax reform plan that doesn’t cut taxes for the rich?

    ReplyReply
  73. 73
    catclub says:

    @randy khan: Sure, if it raises taxes on the poor. EITC cut, plus auditing recipients.

    ReplyReply
  74. 74
    japa21 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As I understand it (will wait to see) one of the changes is supposed to be to remove the AMT. That mostly helps the rich. The tax rate could stay the same and they would reduce their taxes substantially.

    And, of course, he lies about our corporate tax rate. Nominally it is high. In practice it is really rather low.

    ReplyReply
  75. 75
    Yutsano says:

    @japa21: If the AMT was indexed to inflation then yes its removal would be a total sod to the upper rich. As it stands it wasn’t, and it does take a rather big chunk out of folks who are upper middle class. I would just as soon dump it for higher marginal brackets.

    ReplyReply
  76. 76
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @japa21: he also said “middle class” about 4 times. Middle class people, and even more so upper/middle class people who think of themselves as MC, are not gonna like the elimination of mortgage interest and state tax deductions, which I believe are two of Ryan et al ‘s key ideas. Still only a handful of states without state income tax no? Mostly but not all red?

    Looking at a map of state income tax, I think that one’s dead in the water.

    ReplyReply
  77. 77
    Yutsano says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Washington only has a sales tax, and yes it’s regressive. But if that deduction gets removed then yeah that will make some upper class suburabanites quite perturbed.

    Any mention of the taxing of 401Ks?

    ReplyReply
  78. 78
    JCJ says:

    @japa21:

    And, of course, he lies about our corporate tax rate. Nominally it is high. In practice it is really rather low.

    So I understand. Then why not just lower it to whatever %? Do the corporate lawyers like having it at 35% so they can finagle with things so they have good job security? I know nothing about any of this. (added to the list of things I know nothing about!) Yutsano can chip in from his perspective.

    ReplyReply
  79. 79
    Kay says:

    @japa21:

    The problem is explaining how you are going to do something

    I actually think that’s part of the problem too. No one really wants explanations of how you will do it. They just want you to do it.

    It’s just not true that people want explanations. No, they do not. Let political media screech. They never made Trump explain anything. Now we don’t have to either. We can still HAVE a plan. We just don’t have to explain it.

    ReplyReply
  80. 80
    Another Scott says:

    @Yutsano: The AMT was the reason why Trump paid $38M in federal income taxes in 2005 rather than $5.3M. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he wants to get rid of it. But there’s a good reason why it’s there, and a good reason why it needs to be kept (and strengthened). Sure, maybe, adjust the starting income value. Maybe. But keep it.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  81. 81
    catclub says:

    @Yutsano:

    As it stands it wasn’t, and it does take a rather big chunk out of folks who are upper middle class. I would just as soon dump it for higher marginal brackets.

    1. I suspect that upper middle class is doing a lot of work here. Like $250-$500k/yr incomes, rather than $90-200k/yr incomes.
    As far as I could tell- which was difficult- AMT applies after you have $100’s of thousands in itemized deductions of various kinds.
    I kept looking for some formula and never could find any.
    2. AMT taxes people who have all their (substantial) income as interest from tax free municipal bonds. How would changing marginal rates get any taxes from them?
    3. I think you may be waiting a while for any higher marginal brackets. They are too logical and efficient.

    ReplyReply
  82. 82
    Kay says:

    It’s really a measure of how little these people give a shit about “ordinary Americans” watching their intense interest in tax cuts as compared to health care. Trump tax cuts will benefit so few people, yet look how excited he is!

    Health care bores them, because WE bore them. It’s all hand’s on deck to cut taxes! They couldn’t do shit on health care for tens of millions of people but mention tax cuts and they’re working feverishly.

    ReplyReply
  83. 83
    catclub says:

    @JCJ:

    Then why not just lower it to whatever %?

    The official max rate is 35%, but the effective rate (the average amount collected from declared profits) is more like 10-15%. If you lower the max rate, the effective rate will then probably drop
    to say-7-9%, and the total money taken in by the Corporate taxes, as a percentage of GDP, drops even lower. Blows a pretty big hole in the budget.

    ReplyReply
  84. 84
    geg6 says:

    By the way, Doug, love the title. My high school boyfriend’s band used to play that song and I don’t think I’ve thought of or heard it since then.

    *goes off in search of it on YouTube*

    ReplyReply
  85. 85
    JCJ says:

    @catclub:

    So why not a flat 15% rate?

    ReplyReply
  86. 86
    catclub says:

    @Yutsano:

    If the AMT was indexed to inflation then yes its removal would be a total sod to the upper rich.

    it was fixed as part of the 2013 fiscal cliff: The patch ends here.

    As part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, Congress agreed to boost the level of alternative-minimum-tax exemption retroactively for 2012 and to index future exemption levels to keep pace with inflation.

    “We went all through 2012 not knowing whether an additional 26 million taxpayers would be affected by the AMT,” said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst for CCH, a division of Wolters Klewer Financial Services Inc. that provides tax and accounting software and services. “Making the AMT exemption permanent at least gives people some certainty going forward.”

    I would have expected you to know this.

    ReplyReply
  87. 87
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    Health care bores them, because WE bore them.

    They will be board to death at this rate.

    ReplyReply
  88. 88
    TenguPhule says:

    @JCJ:

    So why not a flat 15% rate?

    Because that would mean they effectively pay nothing after adjustments.

    ReplyReply
  89. 89
    JCJ says:

    @TenguPhule:

    But by flat I mean no adjustments.

    ReplyReply
  90. 90

    @geg6: …still trying to figure out what song it is…

    ReplyReply
  91. 91
    Kay says:

    I could just make an immediate practical suggestion for Democrats on college. If they want to reach working class people stop talking about 4 year colleges. 52% of Latino undergraduates attend a community college. It’s 43% for AA and 41% for all undergraduates.

    Take it out of the 4 year, pack for college, go away to school frame. It’s quite literally elitist :)

    If you’re looking for lower income young people, that’s where they are. It’s okay and great to tell people to strive but it’s insulting to ignore where they actually go to school and pretend they’re all headed to Harvard because they perceive that as looking down on them. Where they are is good and admirable and worthwhile, all by itself. I think Democrats have trouble with this because it seems elitist or like assigning them a lower rank to assume they’re all going to community college but the fact is that is where many of them ARE and there’s nothing wrong with it.

    ReplyReply
  92. 92
    TenguPhule says:

    @JCJ:

    But by flat I mean no adjustments.

    Never gonna happen. Too many vested interests in specific tax breaks. And there are metric shit ton of them.

    ReplyReply
  93. 93
    Yutsano says:

    @catclub: I actually looked at the instructions for line 45 and the 6251 form and without creating dummy numbers to somehow make it work it’s really hard to say where the thresholds are. But you are correct in that it would affect Dolt45 quite heavily. So yeah no tax reform without seeing how it’s going to affect him personally.

    ReplyReply
  94. 94
    JCJ says:

    @TenguPhule:

    An AMT for corporate taxes?

    ReplyReply
  95. 95
    sheila in nc says:

    Somebody knowledgeable mentioned back when Forbes was running on a flat tax platform that setting a rate or even a progressive set of rates is not the complicated part of taxation. Rather, the details are all about what is defined as taxable income. If you’re taxing net profits, fine; but net after what? How do you get to work in depreciation or other investment expenditures? This isn’t my field but I can easily envision how the details would matter when constructing policy.

    ReplyReply
  96. 96
    joel hanes says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    Never Been To Spain

    ReplyReply
  97. 97
    sheila in nc says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: Three Dog Night, Never Been to Spain

    ETA, missed it by one minute!

    ReplyReply
  98. 98
    TenguPhule says:

    @JCJ:

    An AMT for corporate taxes?

    Sounds good in theory.

    Trying to pass it in legislation though…..

    ReplyReply
  99. 99
    Kay says:

    One thing they could do is when they’re going to hold a rally or an organizing event instead of going to Ohio State go to the community college in Columbus. That’s their college. Go there. Because the usual line from Democrats is “we love community colleges for workforce development” or some awful wonkish shit but what they’re missing is that’s their college. For many of them it’s the only college they will ever attend. So treat it like that. Be respectful of that.

    ReplyReply
  100. 100
    catclub says:

    @JCJ: There is one.

    ReplyReply
  101. 101
    Another Scott says:

    @sheila in nc: Yup. Exactly right.

    The Teabaggers who complain about the eleventy-seven thousand pages of the federal tax code never mention that 99+% of that is stuff put in there to help companies and those who can lobby Congress. Not average Janes and Joes.

    And even if they did manage to somehow “simplify” the tax code, a week later they’d be working to put more special features back in, “complicating” it all over again.

    It’s shameless.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  102. 102
    Alain the site fixer says:

    @japa21: one issue I found in Miss Bianca’s area is that, in normal elections, if a good Dem isn’t running, whack-a-doodles run and I think, over time, give real dems a bad reputation. So, except for special elections, I think it’s important for real, good Dems to run in all elections.

    ReplyReply
  103. 103
  104. 104
    japa21 says:

    @Kay: I am fully with you on this. And not just community colleges, but trade schools as well.Actually getting the government involved may actually help weed out some of the more unscrupulous ones (assuming the Dems are in charge).

    Back when I was in HS (and no, I am not mentioning the year, but it was almost the Middle Ages) the athletic teams got all the major recognition, followed by some of the academic ones (debate, forensics). What got almost no recognition were the teams (and they did exist) involving what would be the trades. Our HS auto mechanics team won state. The only reason I knew was because I was on the student paper which put out a big one line notice. Never mentioned in any assemblies or such.

    ReplyReply
  105. 105
    japa21 says:

    @Alain the site fixer: No argument there. Of course, it seems unfair. The GOP runs whackadoodles and it doesn’t impact their image.

    ReplyReply
  106. 106
    japa21 says:

    OT, but there was a school shooting near Spokane today. One reported death, 3 wounded, shooter in custody. No other new at present. The article I saw added this little tidbit:

    The United States has had an average of 52 school shooting incidents a year since a gunman killed 26 young children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group founded in response to that massacre.

    But it is too soon to politicize murder.

    ReplyReply
  107. 107
    geg6 says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    Never Been to Spain by Three Dog Night

    https://youtu.be/QQ3MM3odYJI

    Actually written by Hoyt Axton.

    ReplyReply
  108. 108
    sukabi says:

    Another opportunity to flip a seat at the state level.

    The other three include former GOP state Rep. Dan Kirby (resigned in February after being accused of sexually harassing two former legislative aides), former GOP state Sen. Ralph Shortey (resigned in March after being charged with child prostitution) and former staffer for GOP Gov. Mary Fallin, Travis Brauer (resigned last week after being charged for taking upskirt pictures).

    Marlatt’s resignation is effective immediately. A special election will be set to fill his vacant seat.

    ReplyReply
  109. 109
    chopper says:

    @japa21:

    I wonder what a state level HS auto mechanics team competition is even like.

    ReplyReply
  110. 110
    opiejeanne says:

    @Sab: Er, Methodists do get angry. I’ve heard some angry sermons about civil rights and stewardship of the earth. In favor of if that’s not clear, but angry.

    ReplyReply
  111. 111
    Vheidi says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: first time I’ve listened to it-great interview-Hillary seemed forthright, rueful, and humorous.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *