Author Topic: Trump v. Obama nominees  (Read 864 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Trump v. Obama nominees
« on: July 17, 2017, 02:32:15 PM »
I found this NYT article very interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-appointments.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0  It blames Trump for not having his positions filled rather than Congress for delaying them.  However, you guys are able to look at a chart and interpret it.  What I see, is Obama making nominations, and with a lag of couple weeks they are all appointed, that is not the Trend on Trump's appointments, where he seems to make the nominations and the approval bar drags noticeably.  The combined chart is very telling on this.   There's virtually zero gap for Obama through week 8, and the gap only stretches when he makes a large number of appointments at once. 

I think it's interesting the NYT's conclusion is that Trump's appointments (where they looked) only lagged 9 days on average behind Obama's for time to approval.  Given there are less nominees, shouldn't that be faster?  And I don't see how that trend could possibly hold given the chart with such a large number of appointments outstanding (3 times the approved amount, which is a ratio that Obama never once suffered).

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2017, 03:01:18 PM »
While the lag in approvals is interesting, every one of Trump's nominees could be approved and he'd still be well behind Obama in confirmed positions. The Democrats may be slowing approvals but Trump isn't nominating very quickly.

Rough arts major math shows Obama nominated appointees at about half again the rate of Trump once the rate of appointees picked up (Obama week 7; Trump week 12).

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2017, 03:27:06 PM »
Does it make sense to have a discussion on the pure mathematical data without even considering that the contentiousness of some choices may play into the delays? 

Not saying that all Turmp's picks are going to be "bad" and contested, but when you run an "outsider" campaign, doesn't it make sense that the "insiders" will put a little drag on your operations?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2017, 03:58:31 PM »
Ethics vetting for millionaires takes longer?  ;D

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2017, 11:18:37 PM »
Trump nominees have been slow to get together ethics and security clearance forms. Also lets remember that republicans control the senate and there are no filibusters for appointees anymore. So while the democrats may be slow walking some of the nominations there is only so much they can do.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2017, 03:35:56 PM »
There are however, a near endless string of delaying tactics that can and have been used by the Democrats.  Filibustering is only one of many methods. 

It sounds like you want to argue substance.  I don't think there's any serious debate that the Dems are delaying approvals, which is why the article appropriately focused on the appointments vs the delays.  Based on the stats, and particularly on the trend  lines, it's pretty clear it made an erroneous conclusion as to which are primarily responsible. 

I will say, it's entirely possible that the Republicans are complicit, I have no idea if they could strong arm the approvals and override the delays.  I suspect they could do so, if they chose to do nothing else, that's kind of why these tactics work.  Overriding them requires you bring overwhelming force at specific points, where the points can be created at will by minority action this gets impractical overtime.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2017, 04:41:55 PM »
There's also the possiblity that its much easier to qualify an appointee for Deputy who has been a staffer for years and held several appointed positions than somebody with no previous government position. I have no data to back that up, it is pure speculation, but fits the pattern of several of his high-profile choices.

But, yes, all mainstream outlets have numerous articles on the delays.

It wouldn't make much sense for the administration to keep nominating people while the queue is backed up. As it is, some of the deputy appointees have withdrawn. Consider this revolving door:

Quote
Green, however, isn't even the first Trump army secretary nominee to back out. Trump's first choice, Wall Street billionaire Vincent Viola, withdrew in February over concerns about the complicated task of divesting from his many business interests. Trump's navy secretary nominee Philip Bilden also withdrew in February because of financial issues. Trump's initial choice for labor secretary, Andrew Puzder, withdrew in February after it became clear he didn't have the votes necessary to be confirmed by the Senate.

So the problem is more than just Democrat delaying tactics. It's also about picking day traders who own sports teams and race horses, as opposed to the man doing the job with an "Acting" in front of his title. Robert Speer had a 28 year career in the army, and worked in the Defense industry and at the pentagon for another decade. Viola donated some money to West Point.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2017, 05:07:07 PM »
I can't see any reason that this Administration would want to appoint career bureaucrats that are hostile to it and to Republicans to head the agencies of the President's administration.  Did you see anything to indicate that this would be an effective way to achieve their goals?

It's like saying that the only way to clean up Chicago politics is to appoint a Chicago politician because outsiders will never understand the mechanics and where the bodies are buried.  It may be true, but its also true that appointing the insider won't clean up the mess either.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2017, 05:56:52 PM »
This is more like appointing a hall of fame hockey player to be your new linebacker coach. Yeah, he's an athlete.. but he doesn't know anything about coverage.

Now if you picked the billionaire CEO of FedEx that might make some sense and still be an outsider. At least someone familiar with global operations, logistics, and organization of massive numbers of people and facilities has some relevant skill to bring as Secretary of the Army.

But its an example of how Trump seems to make his picks based on who he trusts because of personal relationships, rather than who is truly qualified.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2017, 06:28:51 PM »
No to use your analogy, it's more like appointing a successful Hockey GM to the back office of an NFL franchise.  A huge amount of their skills overlap, and it's a matter of whether they can adjust.  Or more on point, its exactly how every major corporation works today, where they appoint talented people to divisions where they don't have technical expertise, knowing that their management skills are translatable and what's important.

I'm also not buying the "unqualified" accusation unless you specify which are unqualified and why exactly.  Don't even try for DeVos that's a matter of philosophy not qualification.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2017, 07:19:46 PM »
{anecdote, humor}Yes, it was so successful when Apple installed the CEO of Coca-cola :P{/}

There's a reason why tech ceos tend to go to other tech companies, transportation to transportation, etc. There's also a reason why it is quite common for comone serving as COO to become CEO, because they already know the business and do well at it.

On the other hand, there are times when an outsider can come in and innovate. Especially important when the board desires a "turnaround" type leadership who will tear things apart and rebuild them. They will make selective replacements, which is also expected.

I'm not about to break down every appointees resume and do an assessment on each one.

DeVOS isn't unqualified. She ran a shady MLM, and she got that job because her Dad gave her the company he founded. That's not really who I'd want to hire. However, she's been involved in politics for many years, and involved in charter schools. she has a foundation for working in the area. She suffers from many of the same concerns about conflict of interest that other Trump appointees have.

She's terrible at speaking in the public eye, which continues to plague all in the Trump camp. Of course, the other school of thought is that its just the awful media out to get her. But when you're used to being the head of a company, you can usually get away saying wacky things, like "potential grizzlies". In the context of the hearing she was trying to build on an earlier statement, but it just makes her wind up looking goofy and out of touch.

You've got our secretary of state who ran an oil company with ties to Russian oligarchs, which was just recently fined 2 million clams for violation of sanctions against that country. He's at least got some qualifications despite that.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2017, 10:49:38 PM »
There are however, a near endless string of delaying tactics that can and have been used by the Democrats.  Filibustering is only one of many methods. 

It sounds like you want to argue substance.  I don't think there's any serious debate that the Dems are delaying approvals, which is why the article appropriately focused on the appointments vs the delays.  Based on the stats, and particularly on the trend  lines, it's pretty clear it made an erroneous conclusion as to which are primarily responsible. 

I will say, it's entirely possible that the Republicans are complicit, I have no idea if they could strong arm the approvals and override the delays.  I suspect they could do so, if they chose to do nothing else, that's kind of why these tactics work.  Overriding them requires you bring overwhelming force at specific points, where the points can be created at will by minority action this gets impractical overtime.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/335047-gop-frustrated-by-slow-pace-of-trump-staffing

Key quotes from that article.

Quote
“We need to get more names up here so we can work on them,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas), the second-ranking member of Senate GOP leadership.
“They need to pick up the pace,” added Senate GOP Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking member of leadership.

Quote
Part of the problem, GOP lawmakers say, is that it’s taken a long time for the White House to clear people through the Office of Government Ethics.

Quote
Republicans blame obstructionist tactics deployed by Democrats for the slow pace.

Of 38 civilian nominations confirmed by the Senate so far, Democrats have forced Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to schedule 23 votes to end filibusters of those nominations.

So I stand by my analysis. Trump has been very slow to nominate and clear people through ethics forms and democrats have made it a pain to confirm a little over half of them. Although some of those filibusters were too be expected and substantive (EPA, Dept of Ed, and Dept of Energy). Others (like director of national intelligence) are likely just the Democratic caucus enjoying being the ones who get to gum up the works after McConnell did it to them for so many years.

Although I think there is a slight error/ambiguity in the article those aren't the 60 person to cut off debate filibusters but 50 person votes to cut off debate. Still I'm guessing that takes a day or two per candidate at the pace the Senate works. So I think it would be safe to say that Democrats have slowed the process down by at least 1-3 days per candidate but Trump and his nominees being slow to get their stuff together to give to the Senate is probably responsible for the other week.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2017, 09:53:46 AM »
Yoss, thank you for the link.  Please, however, take a look at the date of your article (through May 20th) and mine (through July 20th), and look at the trend lines in the NYT's piece (I know it's a bastion of conservative thought, lol, but I think you can rely on it a little bit), and you can see that after your piece Trump's nomination trend line rises dramatically, and the approval trend moves up barely at all.

Not sure, by the way, how you missed or why you would glossed over the paragraphs in your own link that make it clear that the Dems are using procedural tactics to slow down every nomination, even ones that move out of committee unanimously and that get 82 votes to get confirmed. 

I got no problem if you believe its more Trump's fault, but ignoring the actual facts to get there doesn't make sense to me.  Trump would have more people appointed if he nominated more people, but the ever increasing lag on approvals of nominated candidates is pretty much solely the result of democratic delays.  And if the approvals don't start matching the nomination line's slope then the analysis shifts to it all being the Dems' fault.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2017, 09:59:38 AM »
More Trump hiring. Hicks is officially now the communications director. This 28 year old who worked on the campaign apparently took dictation for Trump's tweets at that time. Clearly both a Trump insider (having worked directly for the Organization) and a Washington outsider.

We have someone with relatively little experience in PR, and absolutely no experience with administrative politics who will be crafting some of the most important communications on the planet.

Spicer by contrast had served as the RNC Communications Director for six years, worked in the Bush administration as Trade Representative for Media, and many years as Communications Director for various groups in the US House.

So once again, we have Trump replacing very experienced people with less experienced people from his loyal inner circle. It also seems obvious that part of the reason for the choice is her adulation of Trump, and she is unlikely to have an independent voice that might contradict Trump or stop him from making some of his egregious public relations gaffes.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2017, 02:11:33 PM »
To the original point, I can't seem to find a more current trend line of the number of nominations against the number of confirmations, let alone a comparison to Obama's.  Anyone seen an update?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2017, 03:31:28 PM »
You're in luck.  I came across an article updated today (although it may be updated every day, which wouldn't make it all that special then.  But it would be then more useful).  Seems to have the charts that you want.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2017, 04:39:50 PM »
Interesting that there's always a big spike of activity just prior to August recess. Especially since recess appointments were blocked procedurally (no deal on adjournment).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2017, 03:58:51 PM »
Meanwhile....

A year after President Donald Trump's election, there are 152 senior posts unfilled at the Department of State, according to the tracker by Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service.
Last week Mr Trump was asked a question about vacant positions at the State Department.
"I'm the only one that matters," he replied.

-bbc

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump v. Obama nominees
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2017, 01:18:28 PM »
haha. Petersen. Talley.

Real winners. A lifetime judgeship three years out of law school? A guy who has never tried a court case?

Is this a ploy to make the next person look like a wizard by comparison?