Hopefully, their administration will be more effective than Harold Washington’s. When Washington became mayor, the City Council essentially let business grind to a halt because they were so opposed to a black guy who was not an insider being elected as mayor.

Nobody can be compelled to perform under contract that’s unlawful (against public policy). However, these situations are never that black and white, so good luck telling corporate you don’t want to do X policy because it’s risky and they have nothing to lose by making you do it.

In DC it would be a CAVA or another &Pizza.

Also, Tricia Newbold suffers from dwarfism and the Administration tried to fire her by putting all her files in higher drawers and then saying she couldn’t perform her job. I wish I was making that part up.

There have been a few studies. Conservatives tend to vote based on fear and anger and liberals tend to vote on hope, etc. So, anger might not actually turn out the base as much as it does for conservatives.

Related- Has anyone found any legal analysis on whether the interstate compact is lawful? Most of the articles I found just raise the question, but don’t try to answer it.

Obviously, this won’t go anywhere, but it feeds into the narrative that the Dems are trying to make government (somewhat) more fair and less corrupt, despite their own issues- I’m looking at you DCCC. The bigger question will be if the Dems can actually figure out how to use this to their advantage.

I was going to mention this.

Yep, the DNC are the Arsenal of politics. Had a good run a while ago, now they occasionally win minor trophies, but are ultimately falling further and further behind. Oh, and they’re experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nothing turns out the base like the attitude of ‘We know you’ll vote for anyone with D next to their name because you hate Trump so much.’ So, here’s a less-bad establishment Dem. 

The GOP was happy (and effective) to be the opposition party, but when they have to come up with ideas other than “undo whatever Obama did” and “cut taxes on the wealthy,” they’re lacking.

He will remove references to persons not indicted, use anticipatory executive privilege (which isn’t a thing but Sessions did it anyway), etc. to over-redact the report.

God, I hate that I’m doing this, but I’m going to sort-of defend her.

That looks awfully familiar. I wonder where I’ve seen similar Byzantine requirements. Oh yeah:

Yes, but let’s be careful in assuming that there’s a smoking gun in there.  There may not be and putting all your hopes and dreams into that report can backfire if it turns out that he did some, somewhat shady stuff, but nothing over the top. 

Apologize for Vince Foster, Seth Rich, White Water, Benghazi, Obama’s Birth Certificate, Obama being a secret Muslim, Most of Kavanaugh’s career (I’m sure I’m missing others), have the people responsible step down, and we’ll talk.

I do have a concern this is a “please don’t throw me in the briar patch” situation.  We should not be putting all of our eggs into this basket.  

I’ve also noticed that Trump appointees will filibuster or give non-responsive answers on purpose because it runs out the clock. Other administration officials have done this, but Trump seems to do it bigly. There’s a small PR hit to doing that, but their base will never see it or will think it’s justified.

I think she knows that she doesn’t “present well” at these hearings and she does not care. She’ll tolerate some public embarrassment to destroy the public school system, subsidize religious schools, normalize guns in schools, and roll back civil rights.

I’m torn on whether a slow transition or big bang will work better.  American’s don’t like change, they prefer to be led to the inevitable.