US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

[Kalbear]

 

[Fez]

Assuming Trump still forces Ryan (weak! sad!) to force a vote today, then if history is any guide (and I think for Congress it is) once its clear the bill is going to fail, a whole lot of Republicans who are concerned about how unpopular the bill was but were willing to vote for it if necessary to pass it are going to flee en mass. The bill was never going to fail by only a couple votes. Once/if its clear the bill is failing, its going to fail by dozens and dozens of votes.

So the final vote tally won't actually give a clear indication of how close or far the bill was from passing; or who would still be willing to support Trump if their vote mattered. But I doubt Trump will realize that and will attack all of them; further alienating members of congress who were willing to be allies.

[Kalbear]

I'm becoming more and more convinced Ryan will simply not call for a vote. He'd rather take the heat from Trump than congress, and he'd rather not have the attack ads run en masse for this. He can then spin it however he wants - say Trump killed it (is Trump believable enough to say he didn't?), or say Trump didn't give enough support, etc. 

It's basically Trump's playbook thrown back at him. 

[Swordfish]

More interesting than how Trump reacts will be how Ryan and the GOP rank and file react.

Will they be able to use this to their advantage to start undermining Trump.

Should be interesting.

[Brendan Moody]

Administration sources are telling reporters they will indeed try to force the vote. I doubt Ryan has the guts to defy Trump, but we'll see.

[Fez]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I'm becoming more and more convinced Ryan will simply not call for a vote. He'd rather take the heat from Trump than congress, and he'd rather not have the attack ads run en masse for this. He can then spin it however he wants - say Trump killed it (is Trump believable enough to say he didn't?), or say Trump didn't give enough support, etc. 

It's basically Trump's playbook thrown back at him. 

If Ryan were smart, I agree. But Ryan is a spineless coward who has no experience with major legislation.* His one big consequential bill was the budget deal he made with Murray. But that was back when he was Ways and Means Chair and he knew the buck didn't really stop with him.

*This is a point worth coming back to that I've seen some pundits harping on the past couple days. Less than a quarter of the House GOP caucus was in office pre-2006, aka the last time they had a majority and a Republican President. There is almost no institutional knowledge left in what governing is actually like. And the number of members who were around in 2003, the last time there was major Republican health care legislation, is even smaller.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm becoming more and more convinced Ryan will simply not call for a vote. He'd rather take the heat from Trump than congress, and he'd rather not have the attack ads run en masse for this. He can then spin it however he wants - say Trump killed it (is Trump believable enough to say he didn't?), or say Trump didn't give enough support, etc. 

It's basically Trump's playbook thrown back at him. 

As much as I dislike Trump, I don't see how this flies. Ryan is Speaker of the House. It's his job to push these sorts of things through and get the votes needed to pass it. Not sure how he could realistically pass that buck to Trump. Seems to me he's pretty screwed here.

[Fragile Bird]

I see on my Facebook page the NYT is saying Ryan has gone to the WH to tell 45 they don't have the votes.

Unless that was False news from the Failing NYT.

Great title, btw! Prescient!

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

If Ryan were smart, I agree. But Ryan is a spineless coward who has no experience with major legislation.* His one big consequential bill was the budget deal he made with Murray. But that was back when he was Ways and Means Chair and he knew the buck didn't really stop with him.

*This is a point worth coming back to that I've seen some pundits harping on the past couple days. Less than a quarter of the House GOP caucus was in office pre-2006, aka the last time they had a majority and a Republican President. There is almost no institutional knowledge left in what governing is actually like. And the number of members who were around in 2003, the last time there was major Republican health care legislation, is even smaller.

Are those numbers unusual, historically?  I mean, 2003 was 14 years ago.  You would expect some decent amount of turnover there.

And I wouldn't characterize 25% of the caucus as 'almost no institutional knowledge left'.  

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

As much as I dislike Trump, I don't see how this flies. Ryan is Speaker of the House. It's his job to push these sorts of things through and get the votes needed to pass it. Not sure how he could realistically pass that buck to Trump. Seems to me he's pretty screwed here.

Because it isn't Trump's bill, it's Ryan's. And as speaker, he can choose to kill these things. Trump doesn't have the power here one way or another. He can't call for a vote and he can't call for a bill to exist. 

It is not Ryan's job to be the spokesperson for the Trump presidency or his laws. 

[Brendan Moody]

The numbers for the Freedom Caucus, whose opposition to the bill is what gave moderates the cover to oppose it and started the cascade that seems to have killed, it are even worse: I believe only three or four of 30-odd members were in Congress pre-2006. Their experience is in grandstanding obstructionism, not compromise-based governance. Ryan and Trump gave them big concessions on EHB; instead of agreeing they demanded the rest of what they wanted.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because it isn't Trump's bill, it's Ryan's. And as speaker, he can choose to kill these things. Trump doesn't have the power here one way or another. He can't call for a vote and he can't call for a bill to exist. 

It is not Ryan's job to be the spokesperson for the Trump presidency or his laws. 

Right, Ryan's name is all over this bill. You could argue that the only part of it that is truly Trump's are the tax cuts. I don't see how Ryan can honestly hope to pass the baton here. Whether the vote is held or not is somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? The end result is a fail either way.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Right, Ryan's name is all over this bill. You could argue that the only part of it that is truly Trump's are the tax cuts. I don't see how Ryan can honestly hope to pass the baton here. Whether the vote is held or not is somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? The end result is a fail either way.

If the vote is held, it rests very squarely on Ryan pushing a vote that he knew wasn't going to pass. There's a saying about lawyers where you shouldn't ask any question you don't know the answer to - same applies to votes and politics. 

If the vote isn't held, there's blame aplenty to go around. The Freedom Caucus already is blaming Trump for some of this, and that helps with cover. Moderate republicans can blame the accelerated schedule, which is also on Trump. Trump saying he wants to put together a shit list doesn't help that either, mind you, nor do his threats. While Ryan will get a hit there a lot of congress will back him, saying that he made the most of a bad situation, and I bet a lot will ally with him against Trump. 

I've heard there are already 34 confirmed no votes - 2 more during the Spicer briefing. It's looking more and more like it's dead.

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Are those numbers unusual, historically?  I mean, 2003 was 14 years ago.  You would expect some decent amount of turnover there.

And I wouldn't characterize 25% of the caucus as 'almost no institutional knowledge left'.  

Its not unusual, but things don't have to be unusual to be unstable. 2007 was a pretty rocky time for House Democrats too, since they hadn't been in power since 1994, but at least they had the cover of Bush still being president. But then come 2009 Democrats have unified control for the first time 1994 and ended up provoking the 2010 backlash; which at least in part was because went to their policy priority of health care before fully addressing the recession that most voters cared about.

Likewise, House Republicans were a shitshow in 1995, having been out of power since 1952 (now there's a gap). They screwed up a ton of basic stuff constantly. They didn't lose the House in 1996 thanks to external factors (the ongoing deep south realignment), but helped ensure Clinton's landslide.

I'm not saying the House GOP is in a unique spot. I am saying they are going to screw up a lot.

And 25% is a really low mark because anytime there's an internal debate, they're going to be drowned out by those who weren't there last.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I've heard there are already 34 confirmed no votes - 2 more during the Spicer briefing. It's looking more and more like it's dead.

 Good news. And whether this albatross gets hung on Trump's neck or Ryan's, it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it will help to bury both of these cat turds. One can hope.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Its not unusual, but things don't have to be unusual to be unstable. 2007 was a pretty rocky time for House Democrats too, since they hadn't been in power since 1994, but at least they had the cover of Bush still being president. But then come 2009 Democrats have unified control for the first time 1994 and ended up provoking the 2010 backlash; which at least in part was because went to their policy priority of health care before fully addressing the recession that most voters cared about.

Likewise, House Republicans were a shitshow in 1995, having been out of power since 1952 (now there's a gap). They screwed up a ton of basic stuff constantly. They didn't lose the House in 1996 thanks to external factors (the ongoing deep south realignment), but helped ensure Clinton's landslide.

I'm not saying the House GOP is in a unique spot. I am saying they are going to screw up a lot.

And 25% is a really low mark because anytime there's an internal debate, they're going to be drowned out by those who weren't there last.

Interesting.  Thanks for the info.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Is it wrong that I have Cabinet Battle #1 from the Hamilton soundtrack on my mind?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Is it wrong that I have Cabinet Battle #1 from the Hamilton soundtrack on my mind?

Works for me...

 

[Trebla]

This.

Doubly so after the Supreme Court nomination gets rammed through.

[Brendan Moody]