Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.
...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So looks like I can review my prior thoughts on the PA statewide campaigns. Oz and Mastriano represented the two faces of Trump: celebrity crypto-moderate and blood-red culture warrior.
Most of the results are in, and it looks like both lost pretty conclusively. I would frame that as a pretty conclusive rejection of Trumpism, lock stock and barrel. It's really tough for me, as a local Republican, to look at this and not think that McCormick would have taken this election walking away if he hadn't run against his own best attributes; and Bill McSwain probably puts up a stronger fight for Governor with policies that are sane instead of policies like Abolish Public Schools with No Plan to Replace Them. There was a Red Wave coming in to shore, but PA republican primary voters chose candidates who couldn't swim. We could have kept Toomey's seat, and chose not to; and at least avoided a gubernatorial candidate that was a massive anchor dragging everyone else down. This will probably cost the Rs a SCOTUS seat, and possibly more. The stink of Oz and Mastriano might waft on through 2024 if they aren't shuffled off stage fast enough.
It's possible to frame this as a relative "win" for the Oz wing of Trumpism, on the theory that Doug got blown the fuck out while Oz lost narrowly; Fetterman should be sending Mastriano flowers and taking him out to dinner for saving Fetterman's ass by encouraging D turnout. But the difference is more likely to be explained by differences in the quality of their opponents. Shapiro was popular, well known, moderate and ran a tight campaign. Fetterman was doing pretty well, right up until he went from looking like Gritty to sounding like Gritty, and he was always a more radical left wing candidate at a time of high inflation. That Oz couldn't beat out a stroke victim with a spending plan that makes Bernie look like Grover Norquist is a pretty conclusive nail in the Trumpian crypto-moderate coffin.
Given that PA is likely to remain a critical swing state in 2024, Republicans should be looking at this result when picking a presidential candidate and honing a strategy. Arguably Trump is already triangulating against the culture war end of the party, labeling his likely opponent "Ron DeSanctimonious." Desantis should note this as well, and aim to moderate on the culture war front in favor of competence and general good governance principles. And the Rs should strongly consider running a true moderate candidate, an R governor from a blue state, like Hogan or Phil Scott; if they feel Desantis already poisoned the well with his goofy-ass Disney fight and such.
I feel like this reflects a failure to grasp the best of what DeSantis represents. Now, the Martha's Vineyard thing was, I think, a mistake, most especially since the immigrants involved didn't even leave from Florida. But Disney came out swinging against DeSantis. It wasn't his "goofy-ass...fight," it was Disney's goofy-ass fight. DeSantis' only real choice there was to remind them that they are a corporation and tell them to get back in their lane. Anything else would have resulted in DeSantis looking like a bootlicker who caves to Woke Corporatism the moment his moneyed masters yank on the chain.
Disney owns (and tyrannically enforces) a lot of beloved IP, so there will always be some people who think "Disney hates DeSantis, so I hate DeSantis." But politically speaking, "there are consequences to getting politically involved" was exactly the right message to send to businesses in this case. As they say--if you're going to take a shot at the king, don't miss. Disney sticking its corporate neck out to object to a bill forbidding schools from exposing young children to sexually explicit pedagogy was a horrible, horrible choice. They missed their shot, and DeSantis had exactly the correct response: punish defectors.
My problem is that it still hasn't been demonstrated to me that the action abolishing Disney's local control benefits the taxpayers of Florida, rather than harming both Disney and Florida. Lose-lose governance by deterrence does not appeal to me. Sanctity of contract is also highly important to me, but I'm not sure that carries broadly beyond business-Rs. I'm open to evidence that it's good, but I haven't seen it.
I think you're ignoring the "ignore it" option. DeSantis could have just said "You stick to cartoons, I'll run the state" and decried Disney's intrusion into politics, without wading into the muck with them. If you're wealthy, you probably own shares in many "woke corporations" and you don't want to get punished for what management does.
Where is the “breaking of a contract” angle?
Guessing something about changing self governance but Disney is a political entity in this case and insubordination by a political appointee is grounds for firing.
I want to note that I'm against things like RCID before they happen, I've opposed them locally and will continue to. But breaking the deal after it happens is another thing entirely. A bargain was made, if the government won't stand behind it then investment can't be done on solid ground.
The basics of these kind of deals are that a corporation lobbies the state for special treatment, which will enable the corporation to invest serious money in the community in a profitable way. Disney held up their end of the bargain, modern Orlando exists because of Disney world. Disney brings in billions in tourist dollars every year, habituates the entire East coast to vacationing in Florida, it's the crown jewel of Florida's tourist industry. And it's immovable, Disney cannot remove its investment at this stage.
I can't really parse the "Disney is a political appointee" thing. Is your theory that one loses the right to speak after accepting economic benefits from the government, else those deals may be revoked? That would vastly impact property developers across the country. And also make RCID type deals even more dystopian, with governments blatantly handing out favors to those who will back them and revoking them if they don't stick by the government line. That is not a box we want to open.
The problem is that if you argue that governments are NOT allowed to rescind these special districts, even through proper legislative action, for virtually any reason whatsoever, you're forced to accept that these corporations have some legal entitlement to said districts.
Which is also to cede the state's authority over political entities created by said state.
Which is just silly.
Not really, any more than signing a contract ever limits your rights. Saying that a sovereign state can't sign a contract limiting its own sovereignty gets too into "Could an omnipotent God create weed so dank he could not smoke it?" territory for me; but suffice it to say that whatever the proper procedure for unwinding an RCID type special district is, it isn't by legislative fiat motivated by momentary political spats.
The powers in question are based in the Florida Constitution.
If the Constitution doesn't limit the Government from dissolving the districts, what contract, specifically, would do so?
Who, specifically, is authorized to set that procedure, do you think?
I'll do half the work for you. Here's the actual body of law involved:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/Chapter189
More options
Context Copy link
There's a general principle that a legislature cannot bind a future legislature. Otherwise, any time a party got control of a legislature, it would pass as many laws as possible that limit the scope of action of future legislatures. As such, voiding a contract made by a previous legislature would require compensation as per the Takings Clause, but is a wholly permissible use of legislative power.
Is that happening here and I missed it? I'm not as familiar with the current state of play as I should be given how much shit I'm talking in this thread. Genuinely, I'm not saying that the RCID can never be revoked, or even that it oughtn't to be, merely that my understanding is that it is not a "win" for Florida at the end of the day, it is likely to end up costing Florida money to no obvious benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link