US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

[Kalbear]

The problem is that Trump really only had success after going after Obama. Prior to this he was an ignored hack that wasn't anything in anyone's political circles, but the Birther movement really put him on the fringe of the alt-right and Alex Jones and Breitbart bullshit. 

I don't think for a second that the same happens on the left, because we've not seen a fringe looney candidate on the Democrat side. We see them in the Green party, but they get weeded out of the Democratic party pretty fast. Part of that is that the Democratic party is significantly stronger as a coalition and as a party - between the superdelegates, the local/state systems, etc - they're far more unified and more insular. This is both a strength and a weakness, but it does mean that outside idiots almost never get a foot in the door. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And Sanders fate was basically the same as O'Malley; the only difference is that Sanders suckered a lot of people out of money and stayed in the race for a long, long time, long after it was remotely reasonable to do so. That was pretty unprecedented; usually the money runs out, and Sanders figured out a way to get a lot of money. That's pretty new. But he wasn't competitive past the first Super Tuesday.

Now, Sanders showed that there was enough progressive support that Clinton had to address and pivot to it. That's important. But he didn't take over the Democratic party and the party did a pretty good job resisting his advances. He certainly was surprising how well he did early on, but it wasn't particularly close.

 

Not just progressives though. Also the more rural, elderly and blue collar whites. And the younger voters flocked to Sanders, too (which might have been the more progressive votes). And she really didn't figure out how to get those groups to vote for her in the General election. 

She carried the south mainly on the minority vote, and Sanders attributed a lot of that on Clinton being more of a household name, and that he was able to make some inroads to those voters after Super Tuesday settled the primary race. 

Sanders campaigned on issues so him just finishing the primary process was basically a principled stance imo. You can criticise him for that, but he did not bother to attack Clinton on that e-mail server, that Benghazi nonsense. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

Not just progressives though. Also the more rural, elderly and blue collar whites. And the younger voters flocked to Sanders, too (which might have been the more progressive votes). And she really didn't figure out how to get those groups to vote for her in the General election. 

The elderly did not vote for Sanders in any major way. His demographics were largely white (not blue-collar) and rural. You're thinking of Trump; the two aren't the same. As an example, Michigan went really well for Sanders based on a lot of odd factors - but Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania all did not. 

Furthermore, Sanders won in caucus states which were represented largely by those who were seriously interested. He didn't do nearly as well in closed primaries. Again, points to the progressive part, not the demographics part. 

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

She carried the south mainly on the minority vote, and Sanders attributed a lot of that on Clinton being more of a household name, and that he was able to make some inroads to those voters after Super Tuesday settled the primary race. 

Not particularly; I was able to write a simple spreadsheet that predicted his values for voting based on demographics by about 3-4% (the one big miss was Michigan). His message and his lack of connection was a big problem there. Clinton had had major inroads into all the african american communities in the South, knew the leaders of the CBC, and had churches and community centers supporting her. Sanders had basically nothing. He never improved particularly well in the AA community; what improved was that he went away from states with heavy AA populations by comparison.

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

Sanders campaigned on issues so him just finishing the primary process was basically a principled stance imo. You can criticise him for that, but he did not bother to attack Clinton on that e-mail server, that Benghazi nonsense. 

I'm not talking about him finishing up the race; I'm talking about him declaring how the entire primary system is rigged and illegitimate from the superdelegates to the closed primaries to the debates. That was a major sticking point against Clinton that hurt her in the general - one that Trump STILL is using to criticize the democrats (with Perez vs. Ellison). 

[Martell Spy]

How a GOP Health-Care Plan Could Leave Rural Areas Devoid of Coverage
Leaked draft legislation of a Republican Obamacare replacement shows a policy that might leave many Americans even farther behind.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-gop-plan-to-create-health-coverage-deserts/517839/

[S John]

8 hours ago, Fez said:

Virginia requires photo IDs, but university/college/school- and employer-issued IDs are accepted. Also, the state board of elections offers photo IDs that are relatively easy to obtain and are only offered to people who do not have any other acceptable photo ID (so there's no catch-22 issue where you need a photo ID to get a photo ID). ETA: They are also free.

If a state is going to require photo IDs for voting, Virginia is probably the best practices example.

I think this is the way to go honestly.  I'm aware of the requiring ID voter suppression tactic, and that voter fraud is so uncommon as to basically be a problem that doesn't really need fixing.  But requiring ID's to vote AND mandating that the minimum form of ID required to vote be free and easy to obtain seems like the best compromise to me.  Then they'll have to STFU about it.  

[Dr. Pepper]

A DC PAC has been created to oust Chaffetz

Quote

After flooding his office phone lines with complaints and mocking him on social media, District activists are starting a political action committee to target a Utah congressman who has sought to use his powerful House post to overturn D.C. laws.

A photograph of Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is the first image that appears on the web site begun by the Americans for Self-Rule PAC, along with the words, “This guy doesn’t represent D.C.”

Chaffetz is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which reviews legislation enacted by the D.C. Council.In mid-February, the committee voted to overturn the District’s assisted-suicide law, an effort that stalled on the House floor.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

So trump is talking about legalising the status of milions of immigrants. Not a pathway to Citizenship, but basically long-term work visas / residency / green cards(?). Seems like a rather progressive policy. One that probably wouldn;t have a shit show of passing if uttered by a democratic president. But might well pass with Democratic support, so long as the deportation side of any legislation doesn't overtly or covertly target specific demographics.

It might well stick in the craw of some of his nationalist base. A lot of them claim they are motivated by economics to get rid of illegal immigrants, and making their presence legal would actually address those economic concerns. But I'd guess most of them simply want those damned foreigners to go back to where they came from.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So trump is talking about legalising the status of milions of immigrants. Not a pathway to Citizenship, but basically long-term work visas / residency / green cards(?). Seems like a rather progressive policy. One that probably wouldn;t have a shit show of passing if uttered by a democratic president. But might well pass with Democratic support, so long as the deportation side of any legislation doesn't overtly or covertly target specific demographics.

It might well stick in the craw of some of his nationalist base. A lot of them claim they are motivated by economics to get rid of illegal immigrants, and making their presence legal would actually address those economic concerns. But I'd guess most of them simply want those damned foreigners to go back to where they came from.

Somehow I just can't see him abandoning his base like that. Seems like more leaked bullshit to me.

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So trump is talking about legalising the status of milions of immigrants. Not a pathway to Citizenship, but basically long-term work visas / residency / green cards(?). Seems like a rather progressive policy. One that probably wouldn;t have a shit show of passing if uttered by a democratic president. But might well pass with Democratic support, so long as the deportation side of any legislation doesn't overtly or covertly target specific demographics.

It might well stick in the craw of some of his nationalist base. A lot of them claim they are motivated by economics to get rid of illegal immigrants, and making their presence legal would actually address those economic concerns. But I'd guess most of them simply want those damned foreigners to go back to where they came from.

I'd be pretty surprised if he followed through on this -- if we imagine a list of policies that can turn a substantial fraction of his base against him, this is almost certainly very near the top.

By the way, it would definitely not address the economic concerns. This is one of the few cases in which a very similar policy was already tried: in 1986, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act which was duly signed by the Republican President (Reagan). Here's Wikipedia's summary:

Quote

• required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
• made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
• legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
• legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

Sounds reasonable... and it might have been except that the provisions against hiring were circumvented as the Wiki describes and never enforced beyond the occasional raid. The result is that new ones entered the country and instead of on the order of 4 million in 1986, there were on the order of 12 million in 2016. This is why there is such strong opposition to another amnesty: given what happened after the last one, there will be 36 million of them in 2046 if there's another one (I'm joking about the number, but not about the fact that more will come).

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Seems to me that it was close enough that it may have cost Hillary the General though.

The only way in which it may have cost Hillary the election is Bernie supporters voting third party instead.  That was a problem, but it's hard to demonstrate those voters wouldn't have been anti-Hillary/voted third party anyway.

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But in reality Trump merely leans Trump, so at whatever point he decided to run for political office his thinking would not have been what party do I most align with ideologically, but what party is most likely to get me elected?

I base this on absolutely nothing, but I've always thought Trump didn't resolve to run for president until Obama made a fool out of him at that White House Correspondents dinner.  Which would would mean he was always gonna run as GOP.  I suppose he could have run as an independent, but that woulda required a lot more self-funding of the campaign.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for a bit a levity, look how quickly Trump can shift from praising people to throwing them under the bus:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-blames-obama-yemen-raid-navy-seal-2017-2

The whole article serves as a reminder that this man cannot accept blame for anything....

Him absolving himself of responsibility and completely shifting blame is both nauseating to read and against the examples set by every president since at least FDR.  So, about par for the course for a guy that refers to the media as the enemy of the American people.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I'd be pretty surprised if he followed through on this -- if we imagine a list of policies that can turn a substantial fraction of his base against him, this is almost certainly very near the top.

By the way, it would definitely not address the economic concerns. This is one of the few cases in which a very similar policy was already tried: in 1986, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act which was duly signed by the Republican President (Reagan). Here's Wikipedia's summary:

Sounds reasonable... and it might have been except that the provisions against hiring were circumvented as the Wiki describes and never enforced beyond the occasional raid. The result is that new ones entered the country and instead of on the order of 4 million in 1986, there were on the order of 12 million in 2016. This is why there is such strong opposition to another amnesty: given what happened after the last one, there will be 36 million of them in 2046 if there's another one (I'm joking about the number, but not about the fact that more will come).

Sure it would, if it was enacted and enforced as envisaged. The fact that 1986 attempt failed due to lack of proper implementation doesn't mean the economics of it doesn't stack up in theory AND in practice. You've got to look deeper and see why the implementation and enforcement failed and address those issues in the second go around, not just give up on the idea entirely. 

If one of the problems was Mexico was a total shit hole over the last 30 years, then this has changed quite a bit and Mexico is a lot less shit than it was. People claiming the net flow of migration is into mexico not out. So really the circumstances are not the same now. Unless Canada goes to the shit there's no other countries that can access the USA simply by taking a stroll across the border, and therefore large scale illegal immigration is much less of a bogey man than the xenophobic arm of Trump's base like to think it is.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 

I base this on absolutely nothing, but I've always thought Trump didn't resolve to run for president until Obama made a fool out of him at that White House Correspondents dinner.  Which would would mean he was always gonna run as GOP.  I suppose he could have run as an independent, but that woulda required a lot more self-funding of the campaign.

 

Well he claims the Dinner roasting he got served had nothing to do with it. Which obviously means it was the main reason he decided to go for it.

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Quote

"This was a mission that was started before I got here," Trump said. "This was something they wanted to do. They came to see me, they told me what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected — my generals are most respected we've had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-blames-obama-yemen-raid-navy-seal-2017-2

What is this weird 'my generals' bullshit?  Did he retain his sales receipt incase they lose anymore servicemen/women so he can trade in for some new ones?  Goddamn toddler presidents, always screaming 'mine!"

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

My first question is: who wrote that speech? 

I was confused by him saying that the court of appeals unanimously approved his supreme court choice, but then I realized he meant that he was approved to the appeals court by unanimous vote.

The stories were nice, but they are likely the exceptions, rather than the rule. Also note that he said the girl on the voucher program also got scholarships to attend that private school.  Will everyone get those extra scholarships too? 

How can you cut taxes on everyone and every business and expand spending on infrastructure? 

How can you promise better health care for all, to keep the rule that you can't exclude people with pre-existing conditions without the mandate? Where will people get the money to put into their Health Savings Account? How does a tax credit help if you can't afford the initial payment?

How can you say at the end that you will protect clean health and air when 30 minutes earlier you promised to do away with regulations that do just that?

There are just too many things to mention, but I have one more: VOICE!  WTF? Is that the justification they are using for the neighborhood searches, for demanding ID/papers from anyone they think "looks" like they might be an immigrant?

[Altherion]

55 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sure it would, if it was enacted and enforced as envisaged. The fact that 1986 attempt failed due to lack of proper implementation doesn't mean the economics of it doesn't stack up in theory AND in practice. You've got to look deeper and see why the implementation and enforcement failed and address those issues in the second go around, not just give up on the idea entirely.

It failed because the wages and working conditions in most of South and Central America are inferior to those in the US even if the workers in the latter lack work authorization and because the dominant economic philosophy of the American establishment is neoliberalism (which views the free movement of labor as a good thing). At best, the elites may enforced restrictions on illegal immigration for 5-10 years after the law is enacted, but it will never be enforced for prolonged periods of time.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

25 minutes ago, Triskan said:

 

Still not sure what to think on healthcare.  Trump said 'repeal and replace' but offered little in specifics.  

The things he mentioned:

Quote

 

First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

 

HSA's and tax credits only work if you have the money upfront, for those without the ability to put the money into an HSA and pay upfront won't get a tax credit.  Not sure how that will help those in the most need.

How can you have coverage for pre-existing conditions without mandating everyone have coverage? Younger people won't get coverage until they get seriously ill.  There us nothing to stop people from gaming the system and that would drive up cost

[Jaxom 1974]

Hugh Hewitt is horrible...

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

58 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Still not sure what to think on healthcare.  Trump said 'repeal and replace' but offered little in specifics.  

Every idea they've forwarded so far is terrible, IMHO. Sick Pools? Health Savings Accounts? Vouchers? It's going to be a shitshow. The only hope here is that the feedback is so intense that they back down.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I think this sums up Trump's address pretty well...

 

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Here's a thought. If Romney was elected president in 2012 would the probability of Trump ever being elected president be negligible? I think so. In hindsight, is a second term of Obama worth the cost of Trump being POTUS? Surely, two terms of Romney is better than one term of Trump.

I had the same thought here in Aus after Abbott was elected in 2013, that if Gillard hadn't replaced Rudd and Labor had lost that election they would have avoided the subsequent wipeout. Additionally I also thought the self-righteous fury of the right wouldn't have been stoked as high by an electoral outcome they viewed (incorrectly) as illegitimate, which is also a feature in this case although I'd note that the worst offender was Abbott himself for that where Trump just cynically exploited it.

Of course Abbott and Turnbull don't have the power of executive orders, and their utter ineptitude has led to getting very little actually done. They've still done a lot of harm, but I think less in 1.5 terms than Trump has done in 1.5 months.