U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days

[mormont]

I wouldn't describe the Bush win as 'flukier' because his popular vote loss was smaller and his win hinged on the Florida win rather than on narrow wins in a series of states. You can perhaps say the Florida win was, individually, more of a fluke than any of the states Trump needed to win and did, I suppose, and from there say the win overall was more of a fluke. I'd look at it differently but it's a reasonable view.

I think any election that produced a result in line with the popular vote is harder to represent as a 'fluke', however narrow it was.

[Gorn]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

Did you read the article?

The author specifically says that his article does not explain the reasons why these voters stayed home. Altherion asked in the last thread how one would go about showing whether economic policies played a role: the answer is above. Ask these voters. Don't look at their income level and assume.

ETA - it's also worth reminding people that this election was extremely close in the marginal states that Trump needed to win. It's almost impossible to conceive of a flukier win, in fact. As a result, lots of things can be said to have 'lost the election for the Democrats': if any of a number of things had fallen out slightly differently, Clinton would have won. People have a habit of picking their favourite and making it The One True Reason. But that's not how it was.

When poor people in an economically stricken area abandon your party in overwhelming numbers, while rich people join it, it means that your message and policy does not resonate among poor people. What other explanation do you provide for a loss of 1,5 million lower and middle class voters in just five states? It's not (primarily) racism, since only 360 000 could have possibly flipped to Trump, and this number is probably much smaller, since some Trump voters must be new voters.

Democratic party lost 7 million voters between 2008 and 2016, despite the fact that population has grown, demographics are more favorable to them and they faced the worst presidential candidate in history. They are in the minority in every single level of government (48/100 Senate seats, 186/435 Congress seats, 18/50 governorships, 836/1972 state upper house seats, 2344/5411 state lower house seats). Things are not fine the way they are, and present policies are not working.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Except of course that Trump has no interest in allowing Obamacare to survive for three years while Congress dithers on a replacement. He will tell the Republicans that they have 60 days to come up with a repalcement and another 40 days to ram it through Congress.

Further, if indeed the citsed strategy is correct then the Republicans would also succeed in their main aim of destroying Obamacare. It will be in shambles and no plan of socialized medicne would be able to replace it.

 

 

 

They can indeed destroy it. There is no ramming through a replacement through congress, however. There's big limits on what you can do through reconciliation. And the GOP has stated no interest in removing the filibuster. They'd need Democrats to agree to a deal to do replace to avoid the Democratic filibuster of any legislation to replace. 

The GOP can in essence destroy Obamacare though things like funding which can be done by reconciliation. And they could then try to scare Democrats into a deal to replace. However, what happens in the mean time? It doesn't look a politically wise move, and some of the Republican's statements show that at least some of them are aware of this.

We may see similar scenarios with Medaid and Medicare as well. The Republicans have finally caught the car. They now have a lot of power to strip healthcare from various groups of Americans. The problem is some of these people are actual voters.

I don't think Trump actually cares what happens. Except for the fact that he promised to repeal it. I doubt he cares much what form that takes.

 

[Cubarey]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I wouldn't describe the Bush win as 'flukier' because his popular vote loss was smaller and his win hinged on the Florida win rather than on narrow wins in a series of states. You can perhaps say the Florida win was, individually, more of a fluke than any of the states Trump needed to win and did, I suppose, and from there say the win overall was more of a fluke. I'd look at it differently but it's a reasonable view.

I think any election that produced a result in line with the popular vote is harder to represent as a 'fluke', however narrow it was.

Popular vote results are rather uncorrellative to the actual results. For the last 30 years Democrats can only win if they win the popular vote by 3% or more. That's because that while more voters may tend to vote democratic they are concentrated in a few major urban states. Fact is that the Presidential election is not one election it is 51 seperate elections and what you need to win is not the popular vote but the electorial college. 

 

Also the 2004 election hinged on the result of Ohio (that's why when it was close Kerrey did not concede until the next day). That, in 2016 Clinton won the poular vote does not make Trump's vicotry a fluke it means that there is a disconnect between who wins the popular vote and who wins the elctorial college. Also, in 2016, Clinton loss 4 states that had gone Democratic at least 5 of the last six elections (if you count Iowa as the 4th state. Even if she would have won Michigan and Wisconsin she still would have lost. Since they revolved on who one one state both the 2000 and 2004 elections were thus "fluckier" in that they were much closer and the change in far less votes would have changed the results.

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

They can indeed destroy it. There is no ramming through a replacement through congress, however. There's big limits on what you can do through reconciliation. And the GOP has stated no interest in removing the filibuster. They'd need Democrats to agree to a deal to do replace to avoid the Democratic filibuster of any legislation to replace. 

The GOP can in essence destroy Obamacare though things like funding which can be done by reconciliation. And they could then try to scare Democrats into a deal to replace. However, what happens in the mean time? It doesn't look a politically wise move, and some of the Republican's statements show that at least some of them are aware of this.

We may see similar scenarios with Medaid and Medicare as well. The Republicans have finally caught the car. They now have a lot of power to strip healthcare from various groups of Americans. The problem is some of these people are actual voters.

I don't think Trump actually cares what happens. Except for the fact that he promised to repeal it. I doubt he cares much what form that takes.

I'm not 100% sure Trump even cares about repealing the ACA. This is the guy who's saying the infamous wall was a metaphor, and that he isn't really interested in locking up Hillary Clinton anymore, so...

The GOP is in a pickle vis a vis the ACA. They've promised for years to repeal the law, but that was when they had no power to actually do it. Easy to promise when you can't deliver. And this "delayed repeal" plan is just stupid; history has shown that the ticking clock does not necessarily induce Congress to do anything. Remember sequestration? Those spending cuts were deemed so painful that Congress would do anything to avoid them, and...well, we all know what happened.

Fact is, health insurance reform is not a Republican priority, and the party does not have any interest in wrangling for 15 months over a replacement behind which they have yet to coalesce that would also not strand 20 million Americans. Trump's victory has not changed the basic nature of voters, which is that they blame worsening conditions on whatever party holds the White House. If millions of Americans lose their health insurance, it's not Democrats who will take the blame.

The GOP is just dysfunctional enough, however, for me to not be sure it won't screw up here and brass off those 20 million people. So I don't know what's going to happen.

[Cubarey]

"There's big limits on what you can do through reconciliation"

 

Really, I remind you that the ACA was passed under reconciliation. All it takes to pass a major bill under reconciliation is for 51 Senators to agree to accept the House bill without change. 

 

 

" We may see similar scenarios with Medaid and Medicare as well. 

 

You must really live in Lala land. Repealing Obamacare is quite reasonable since Republicans have made no secret since its passage that they would repeal it at the first oppurtunity. The fact that it's unpopular and getting more so everytime the rates rise makes that repeal politically viable. No one in the Republican Party has talked about repealing either Medicare or Medicaid. Medicare is also quite popular with seniors who overwhelmingly vote coservative. Republicans are many things but politically suicidal is not one of them.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Really, I remind you that the ACA was passed under reconciliation. All it takes to pass a major bill under reconciliation is for 51 Senators to agree to accept the House bill without change. 

False. 

Quote

 

The Jan. 9 news article “ Obama vetoes bill aimed at repealing health law ” repeated a commonly held misconception about the process used to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010: “To pass the Obamacare repeal bill, Republican lawmakers used the complex budget procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in this case — the same procedure Democrats used to pass the bill in 2009 when they controlled both the House and Senate.” The Senate did not use the reconciliaton process to pass the ACA. The act, comprising 906 pages, is the basic comprehensive substance of Obamacare. It was passed on a bill that was filibustered, and a supermajority vote of 60 was required to end that filibuster (by invoking cloture under Senate Rule 22). It was signed by the president on March 23, 2010, and became Public Law 111-148. 

A second bill, which was a reconciliation bill, was passed after that date to make a series of discrete budgetary changes in the ACA. That act, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, was signed by the president on March 30, 2010, and became Public Law 111-152. It comprises 54 pages, 42 of which dealt with health care. Like the reconciliation bill in 2010, the reconciliation bill that the president vetoed this month made discrete budgetary changes in existing law. That vetoed bill did not “repeal” Obamacare. It amended several of the law’s budgetary components while leaving the basic structure of the law in place. 

 

Obamacare was not passed using budget reconciliation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-was-not-passed-using-budget-reconciliation/2016/01/22/e72d321a-bed5-11e5-98c8-7fab78677d51_story.html?utm_term=.dae276bc431a

 

Quote

You must really live in Lala land. Repealing Obamacare is quite reasonable since Republicans have made no secret since its passage that they would repeal it at the first oppurtunity. The fact that it's unpopular and getting more so everytime the rates rise makes that repeal politically viable. No one in the Republican Party has talked about repealing either Medicare or Medicaid. Medicare is also quite popular with seniors who overwhelmingly vote coservative. Republicans are many things but politically suicidal is not one of them.

 

Paul Ryan is certainly telegraphing that he wants to do this. And I certainly don't trust Trump or the rest of the GOP to put a stop to it. The form it'd probably take is wrecking Medicare for anyone 50 and younger. This neatly sidesteps the senior problem. Yes, it is indeed politically risky. However, it is a huge goal of wealthy conservative donors. Going after Social Security was political suicide. It did not stop Bush from trying. After all what is power worth if you can't serve wealthy donors?

The chances are especially high because it is likely Trump just doesn't give a damn what is going on with healthcare and will farm it out to Congress.

Is Paul Ryan already eyeing Medicare cuts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/11/is-paul-ryan-already-eyeing-medicare-cuts/?utm_term=.3f2f1c0e451d

 

 

[Cubarey]

" However, it is a huge goal of wealthy conservative donors. "

 

Really, I'm a wealthy conservative donor and no quite a few more and Medicare and Medicaid are the last thing that wealthy people are going to fight over. Paul ryan is a fiscal conservative not a bomb throwing radical. He is interested in seeing how we pay for these programs (cutting other domestic spending) but is professional politician that has very few illusions about the radical plans you seem he salivates over. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Really, I'm a wealthy conservative donor and no quite a few more and Medicare and Medicaid are the last thing that wealthy people are going to fight over. Paul ryan is a fiscal conservative not a bomb throwing radical. He is interested in seeing how we pay for these programs (cutting other domestic spending) but is professional politician that has very few illusions about the radical plans you seem he salivates over

. 

 

Cutting what domestic spending? Various healthcare programs are a huge part of our domestic expenditures. The GOP are also planning large increases in Defense spending and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course deficits no longer matter now that there is a Republican President. That's kind how the dance goes. They only really matter if there is a Democratic President, or if an excuse is needed to cut some government healthcare program.

I'd be greatly relieved if the Republicans didn't cut Medicare or Medicaid, and start no major wars. I'm just not at all certain that will happen, in particular if the Republicans do well in 2018.

Quote

 

Trump has recently sent signals he may no longer see Medicare as untouchable — raising the possibility the GOP eventually pursues a Medicare overhaul. After the election, he laid out a health care platform that called for “modernizing” the program — a phrase would-be GOP reformers also use. The Price pick reinforced that.

The Georgia orthopedic surgeon has championed Ryan’s Medicare plan, which has been a central part of Republican budgets since 2011.

The Trump transition team has declined requests to comment on Medicare.

Ryan also defended his premium support plan, saying he worries that Medicare's cost trajectory will mean the program won't be around for future generations. The program’s trust fund is projected to remain solvent through 2028, which is 11 years later than what trustees estimated before Obamacare’s passage in 2010.

 

GOP's Medicare plans run into wall in the Senate
Top Republicans express reluctance to push forward on partially privatizing health care for seniors.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/republicans-medicare-overhaul-232087
 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Cubarey said:

Really, the Bush victory in 2000 is not "Fluckier".  In the 1960 election a flip of less then 60,000 votes in Texas and Illionois would have given the election to Nixon. Actually except for the Republican wipe outs of the Democrats in 1980-1988 and the Obama victories most American elections since 1948 have been rather close with a couple of percentage points worth of votes in a few states making all the difference between victory and defeat.

Elections where the tipping point is less than 2%: 2016, 2000, 1976, 1960, 1948

Elections where the tipping point is greater than 2%: 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1956, 1952

Looks to me like comfortable margins are more likely, on balance.

What makes Trump in 2016 so uniquely flukey is the discrepancy between EV and PV. Gore won the PV in 2000 by a mere half a million - and the tipping point (Florida) was unsurprisingly a complete toss-up. Here we've got a pretty substantial PV margin for Hillary (some five times what Gore's was), yet Trump managed victories in just the right places. Hell, move the Texas swing to Florida, and the Georgia swing to North Carolina, and Hillary wins.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

When poor people in an economically stricken area abandon your party in overwhelming numbers, while rich people join it, it means that your message and policy does not resonate among poor people. What other explanation do you provide for a loss of 1,5 million lower and middle class voters in just five states?

I don't know. What explanation do you provide for why that would happen in some states but not others?

But why should we sit around and guess? Again, what we need is more information. Our 'explanations' are nothing of the sort without that. They're assumptions, guesses, rationalisations.

[Gorn]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I don't know. What explanation do you provide for why that would happen in some states but not others?

This one:

Quote

economically stricken area

But I guess arguing further with you on this issue is pointless. The data clearly supports the economical argument, and you failed to offer any alternative analysis. Filtering out data that don't support your pre-conceived notions is easy, but that way lies Romney's Land of Unskewed Polls, as well as losing election after election after election.

[mormont]

The problem here is that you're treating your assumptions as data. The suggestion that these specific states are 'economically stricken', with the implication that others aren't, is a classic example. Is there a correlation between the drop in Democrat votes among poor voters in a state, and the average income drop in that state over the last eight years, for example? Or even between the drop and the average annual income? That would be data supporting your argument. This data tells us that poor voters in certain specific states stayed home, and nothing more. That isn't data supporting your argument. It's data that says 'we should look into this further'.

I haven't offered alternative analysis because my whole point is that there isn't enough data yet: it would rather undermine my point to do so. But could there be alternative explanations? Clearly there could.

[Isalie]

Weird that we've had like 7 threads about why Trump won but now is when we have to stop talking about it. 

Anyway, I'm not sure that showing that Clinton actually had a plan to help the working class is evidence that that wasn't the problem, since even though I've read every single pre election thread, I still had a very vague idea of what her policy was and a very clear idea of Trump's shenanigans.

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Weird that we've had like 7 threads about why Trump won but now is when we have to stop talking about it. 

Genuinely not sure where this comes from? Nobody's suggested that we should stop talking about it. I've said that people are tending to latch onto explanations that they like on the basis of insufficient data and that more research is needed, but I've been saying that consistently for weeks.

11 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Anyway, I'm not sure that showing that Clinton actually had a plan to help the working class is evidence that that wasn't the problem, since even though I've read every single pre election thread, I still had a very vague idea of what her policy was and a very clear idea of Trump's shenanigans.

It's true that Americans seem to have heard little about Clinton's economic policies. The evidence we have so far suggests that most US voters didn't hear (or register) much about Trump's plans to help the working class either, though.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13570724/media-obsession-emails

[BloodRider]

19 hours ago, The Brandon Stark said:

Proof? I heard everything from Russians to Racism as to why Trump was elected. Face it, Hillary was an out of touch candidate.

You have yet to prove your assertion.

[Commodore]

the SCOTUS appointment will be interesting

It won't change the balance of the court, so maybe the Ds don't try to filibuster the first nominee. It will give them more credibility to do it to the 2nd appointment. If they try and filibuster the first appointment, it will get nuked and be gone for the rest of Trump's term,

I predict Trump will nominate Bill Pryor first for this reason. He's the swing for the fences pick that could get through early on but with more difficult later. 

Other than SCOTUS, the most important domestic appointments Trump makes will be EPA/Interior/BLM. Those agencies have the power to wreak havoc on productivity, with little means for Congress to check them (I'm genuinely shocked the EPA/Obama never tried to impose a nationwide fracking ban). 

[Isalie]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

Genuinely not sure where this comes from? Nobody's suggested that we should stop talking about it. I've said that people are tending to latch onto explanations that they like on the basis of insufficient data and that more research is needed, but I've been saying that consistently for weeks.

Fair enough, sorry.

What I don't get though, is how appealing to working class is somehow adversarial to identity politics. Isn't the working class predominantly non-white and female? And if that's the case, shouldn't it have been possible to appeal to the entire working class without abandoning equality for all? 

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Commodore said:

the SCOTUS appointment will be interesting

It won't change the balance of the court, so maybe the Ds don't try to filibuster the first nominee. It will give them more credibility to do it to the 2nd appointment. If they try and filibuster the first appointment, it will get nuked and be gone for the rest of Trump's term,

I predict Trump will nominate Bill Pryor first for this reason. He's the swing for the fences pick that could get through early on but with more difficult later. 

Other than SCOTUS, the most important domestic appointments Trump makes will be EPA/Interior/BLM. Those agencies have the power to wreak havoc on productivity, with little means for Congress to check them (I'm genuinely shocked the EPA/Obama never tried to impose a nationwide fracking ban). 

What if he actually decides to nominate his sister for the hell of it? She seems like she's reasonably qualified for it, but she's 79 and has been a mainstream liberal judge her entire career. That'd be an interesting wrinkle on it.

I don't think its particularly likely though. But what I do think is that Trump wants a nominee who is conservative in most things but also supports gay marriage; I'm not sure how many judges and lawyers out there fit that particular profile. Maybe Ted Olson?

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Back in the 1980s, when Democrats used to lose presidential elections on the regular, The New Republic would publish a post-election “Recriminations Issue,” which at some point was billed its “Quadrennial Recriminations Issue,” a tradition that finally ended in 1992. The ritual called for every faction within the Democratic Party to air its grievances with every other faction, and to blame them for the defeat. Donald Trump’s surprising victory has given liberals their first chance in a dozen years to revive this bygone tradition.

The 2016 Election Is a Disaster Without a Moral

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-2016-election-is-a-disaster-without-a-moral.html