U.S. Politics: Russian Around

[Kalbear]

Another way to say it is this:

is Kentucky going to go Democrat in 2020? Is Tennessee? Is Alabama? Is Mississippi? Is West Virginia? Not a chance. Hurting those states and the Republican voters there doesn't matter in the least. 

Similarly, pissing off or actively hurting California, Washington, New York, or Massachusetts? Fuck them, they were never going to vote for him anyway.

And he's banking on bringing back jobs in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina while also suppressing any democrat votes in those states to get those votes.

[Zorral]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because alienating voters doesn't matter that much when voters are incredibly polarized and almost every single republican congressional seat is safe due to gerrymandering.

The most dangerous thing to a Republican right now is compromise with a democrat, which can be used against them in their primary elections.

Because they don't give a damn because their objective is to loot everything -- whether public or private -- from everyone, for their own benefit, i.e. the 1%, who honestly believe they are entitled to own 100%.  They already own the rights to most of the sources of the globe's drinkable water, for instance.  Access to clean, potaable water without paying for it is no longer considered a basic human right. (No human rights are considered human rights -- if you can't pay for something you aren't worthy to live.  This isn't a new idea at all -- look at the Gilded Age.).   And when that happens they go to war with each other for one single person to own it all.  

In the meantime the planet dies the death, so it's all moot -- though they believe they will be living fine and safely on their own space stations.

[TerraPrime]

52 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In most cases, people pay more for premiums than what they receive from insurance. That's true of all insurance.

The reason you buy insurance is because you're sufficiently risk averse that you are willing to give up a little consumption in one state to avoid a catastrophic loss in another state. If everyone got more out of their insurance than what they paid in premiums insurance wouldn't work.

Yes, glad you agreed. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Question: Has anyone read or heard what the new leadership at Breitbart looks like now, and does Bannon still have an active connection with the website?

I ask because it doesn't make a ton of sense to see Trump pushing for Ryancare to pass while at the same time Breitbart is aggressively trashing the bill.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Question: Has anyone read or heard what the new leadership at Breitbart looks like now, and does Bannon still have an active connection with the website?

I ask because it doesn't make a ton of sense to see Trump pushing for Ryancare to pass while at the same time Breitbart is aggressively trashing the bill.

He has an active connection but he doesn't run Breitbart anymore. I remember reading an article where he called up Matthew Boyle after Breitbart wrote a scathing article about Preibus without letting him know. So he's still connected but don't think he is influencing the stories.

[Fragile Bird]

I see the US Jobs Report was a good one. Of course, the numbers were almost exactly the same as the numbers in February of 2016 and in 2015. But the administration is taking credit for them (as any administration would, without doubt).

The real shame is, of course, to quote Donald Trump ad nauseaum, is the fact the numbers are absolutely phony. 4.7%? Bullshit! the number is really 30%, or 35%, or maybe even 42%!

Eta: Sean Spicer in his press conference said he asked that specific question of Trump, and Trump's answer exactly was "They may have been phony then, but they're very real now".

Trump voters really were such suckers....

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, TerraPrime said:

Yes, glad you agreed. 

Well, I'm not sure what your quibble was then or if were just talking past each other.

Also if your insurance risk pool is healthier, then your premiums are likely to be lower, so there's that too.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Mexal said:

He has an active connection but he doesn't run Breitbart anymore. I remember reading an article where he called up Matthew Boyle after Breitbart wrote a scathing article about Preibus without letting him know. So he's still connected but don't think he is influencing the stories.

Interesting tidbit about the Boyle phone call. I had just assumed that Bannon wanted that story published to help push Preibus out (I assume the article you're referencing was the one that made it seem like Preibus was on the hot seat and Breitbart knew this because they had sources inside the Administration). 

That said, it still doesn't make a ton of sense to me for Breitbart to be pushing a narrative opposing the White House and Ryancare if Bannon still has an active connect with Breitbart and he wants Trump to succeed. Otherwise I'd assume that he actually doesn't have that close of a connection anymore or he's trying to create an environment which leads to the bill failing and blowing up all over Ryan. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Another way to say it is this:

is Kentucky going to go Democrat in 2020? Is Tennessee? Is Alabama? Is Mississippi? Is West Virginia? Not a chance. Hurting those states and the Republican voters there doesn't matter in the least. 

Similarly, pissing off or actively hurting California, Washington, New York, or Massachusetts? Fuck them, they were never going to vote for him anyway.

And he's banking on bringing back jobs in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina while also suppressing any democrat votes in those states to get those votes.

The states may or may not vote for Democratic candidates statewide (likely may not), but there are plenty of individual districts that are vulnerable; especially if white voters turn against the Republican party the way they did in 2006 (the last time there was a midterm with a Republican president). 

Also, state's political leanings do change over time; West Virginia was the most Democratic state in the country in living memory. The states you mentioned have too many voters with conservative social views to vote for national Democrats right now, but there are plenty of other states where the right Democrat could break through; especially if Trump and the GOP Congress has actively harmed them. 

 

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Question: Has anyone read or heard what the new leadership at Breitbart looks like now, and does Bannon still have an active connection with the website?

I ask because it doesn't make a ton of sense to see Trump pushing for Ryancare to pass while at the same time Breitbart is aggressively trashing the bill.

Business Insider had an article on this earlier this week. It certainly sounds like Mathew Boyle has editorial independence from Bannon, regardless of what Bannon wants.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That said, it still doesn't make a ton of sense to me for Breitbart to be pushing a narrative opposing the White House and Ryancare if Bannon still has an active connect with Breitbart and he wants Trump to succeed. Otherwise I'd assume that he actually doesn't have that close of a connection anymore or he's trying to create an environment which leads to the bill failing and blowing up all over Ryan. 

But Trump prefers his underlings to compete and fight for his favor.  Just because Pence and Price are pushing the AHCA doesn't mean Bannon is.  The White House isn't united on much of anything these days, this is the new normal.

[Guy Kilmore]

I am curious to see where the gerrymandering case that was in Wisconsin ends up going in the Federal Court System.  If it ends up our system of apportioning districts has to be rethought and it becomes less partisan, it really feels like that it would be better for both the Democrats and the Republicans in the long run.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

The states may or may not vote for Democratic candidates statewide (likely may not), but there are plenty of individual districts that are vulnerable; especially if white voters turn against the Republican party the way they did in 2006 (the last time there was a midterm with a Republican president). 

That was before gerrymandering.

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Also, state's political leanings do change over time; West Virginia was the most Democratic state in the country in living memory. The states you mentioned have too many voters with conservative social views to vote for national Democrats right now, but there are plenty of other states where the right Democrat could break through; especially if Trump and the GOP Congress has actively harmed them. 

Over time, sure. But not very often between elections, especially if Trump delivers on other promises. I mean really, right now people are making the same arguments about why this would hurt Trump as they did about why Trump couldn't possibly win - and a lot of that has to do with not understanding what people care about.  To whit: if this was ever about the ACA and Medicare reform, no one would have voted for Trump. That wasn't remotely what the election was about.

Trump is fine with the ACA repeal failing because he doesn't give a shit about it. 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I am curious to see where the gerrymandering case that was in Wisconsin ends up going in the Federal Court System.  If it ends up our system of apportioning districts has to be rethought and it becomes less partisan, it really feels like that it would be better for both the Democrats and the Republicans in the long run.

Certainly better for America.  Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The whole idea of Ryan being the "serious conservative policy wonk" gets me hotter than a two dollar pistol.

No, he's some guy that read Ayn Rand and that's all she wrote.

Well to be fair, he actually is more of a workhorse than a show pony, and he is a conservative policy wonk in the sense that he reads and studies a lot of conservative economic literature. But as you point out, he's coming from a horrid starting point and hasn't study much of anything outside of his conservative bubble. 

Also haven't you heard the news? He stopped forcing his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged in 2012 because of how anti-religion it is (and not at all because he was being considered for VP). 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Trump is fine with the ACA repeal failing because he doesn't give a shit about it. 

I think that was mostly true until he started to press for it. I think once he kind of puts his name or support to something, then it gets personal for him. I believe as you do that he doesn't really give a shit about it per se, but he does give a shit about perception. WE HAVE TO START WINNING! 

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Sorry about that. I just really couldn't help myself as the urge to get a bit goofy was just too strong.

Goofy is good. Well done. 

[Swordfish]

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder how Paul Ryan expects insurance companies to make profits.

I hate the idea of "health insurance for all" as the proxy for UHC (which is essentially what Obamacare is), because at the end of the day a whole swag of people's money ends up as insurance company profits, which means it's not being spent on actual health care. So that inherently makes the health system an inefficient use of financial resources. An actual UHC means all money allocated to health care is actually spent on health care. The question then becomes, how much do we allocate for spending on healthcare to meet minimum public expectations?

We have some health insurance providers who are actually healthcare providers and who are not for profit entities. But I suspect such things are the exception to the rule in the health insurance game.

Of course, the alternative is a whole lot of money earmarked for healthcare going to a vast centralized bureaucracy that serves at the whim of congress, which carries with it's own problems.  Something that should be painfully obvious to everyone right now. 

 

 

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

In most cases, people pay more for premiums than what they receive from insurance. That's true of all insurance.

In the short term perhaps.  Not sure that's true if you consider 'lifetime spending'.  I'll do some googling.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Of course, the alternative is a whole lot of money earmarked for healthcare going to a vast centralized bureaucracy that serves at the whim of congress, which carries with it's own problems.  Something that should be painfully obvious to everyone right now. 

Well it certainly isn't painfully obvious to me that single payer would end up costing us more and producing worse outcomes.

And it's isn't painfully obvious that that things were worse after the ACA than before. And it isn't painfully obvious to me that Medicare has higher administrative cost than private insurance.

To people like Paul Ryan, all this might seem "painfully obvious" but to everyone else, not so much.

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That was before gerrymandering.

Over time, sure. But not very often between elections, especially if Trump delivers on other promises. I mean really, right now people are making the same arguments about why this would hurt Trump as they did about why Trump couldn't possibly win - and a lot of that has to do with not understanding what people care about.  To whit: if this was ever about the ACA and Medicare reform, no one would have voted for Trump. That wasn't remotely what the election was about.

Trump is fine with the ACA repeal failing because he doesn't give a shit about it. 

There's 23 House Republicans in districts won by Clinton. Gerrymandering helps protect the Republican majority, but it is not invincible. And gerrymandering falls apart quickly if voter preferences change; as Democrats in Arkansas found out after 2010.

Also, I think you're ignoring the extent to which Trump's breaks with Republican orthodoxy in the campaign helped him. He campaigned on protecting entitlement programs because those programs are popular; and Clinton never attacked him on those issues. It wasn't the core of his message, but it was there. And his breaking of those campaign promises will hurt him with some of his voters; especially the ones who had voted for Obama in past elections.