Jump to content

U.S. Politics: "Trump Is Dumber Than A Bag Of Hair"


Recommended Posts

@dmc515, I agree with your assessment that the Democrats can pick up 15-30 seats, but the real question is should they be hoping to hit the magic 24 number? I think they may be better off winning 20-23 seats.

@Fez, I told you that more and more Republicans would bail on the AHCA once they couldn't hit 50. I suspect it will be >15 after the recess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@dmc515, I agree with your assessment that the Democrats can pick up 15-30 seats, but the real question is should they be hoping to hit the magic 24 number? I think they may be better off winning 20-23 seats.

I think that is ridiculous.  People judge which party is in power based on who controls the Presidency.  In the 2016 elections, the Democrats were the party "in power" despite Republicans controlling the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress and the majority of governorships and state legislatures. 

With the in mind, what possible advantage would there be to just barely not controlling the House?  If you control the House you have the majority on committees and you could do Congressional investigations that have actual teeth.  Without that, Republicans still control all the levers of power.  This goes double in the House, where the minority party has virtually no influence at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@dmc515, I agree with your assessment that the Democrats can pick up 15-30 seats, but the real question is should they be hoping to hit the magic 24 number? I think they may be better off winning 20-23 seats.

@Fez, I told you that more and more Republicans would bail on the AHCA once they couldn't hit 50. I suspect it will be >15 after the recess. 

Of course Democrats are better off at 24+ plus. With control of the floor and having subpoena power, they can force Trump into whatever situation they want.

And I never doubted that if the bill would fail it would fail bill. Politico is already reporting http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/29/portman-mcconnell-health-care-repeal-240057

Quote

Portman’s opposition shows just how far McConnell is from getting the 50 votes he needs to pass the bill. It’s not a matter of several conservatives or moderates not supporting the proposal. McConnell appears to be as many as 15 to 20 votes shy of majority support.

 

On the other hand, McConnell has agreed to boost the new opioid crisis funding from $2 billion to $45 billion; which may be enough to get some of the moderates back on its own. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/health-care-opioids-money-240077

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that is ridiculous.  People judge which party is in power based on who controls the Presidency.  In the 2016 elections, the Democrats were the party "in power" despite Republicans controlling the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress and the majority of governorships and state legislatures. 

With the in mind, what possible advantage would there be to just barely not controlling the House?  If you control the House you have the majority on committees and you could do Congressional investigations that have actual teeth.  Without that, Republicans still control all the levers of power.  This goes double in the House, where the minority party has virtually no influence at all. 

Other than investigative powers, what advantage is there? Nothing is going to get done if there is a narrow Republican majority or a Democratic majority, and a narrow Republican majority could accelerate party in fighting. Plus, a Democratic majority could be used as a boogeyman in the 2020 elections. And winning in 2020 is all that matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely off topic, but walked right past DJT Jr. on the way to work today.  Only one secret service goon.  Shorter and fatter than I expected.  As horsemen of the Apocalypse go, impressed (in that you'd never pick him out of a crowd but for said goon +5 stealth)/not impressed (same reason -5 dorkiness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Other than investigative powers, what advantage is there? Nothing is going to get done if there is a narrow Republican majority or a Democratic majority, and a narrow Republican majority could accelerate party in fighting. Plus, a Democratic majority could be used as a boogeyman in the 2020 elections. And winning in 2020 is all that matters. 

A Democratic majority will be used as a boogeyman whether Democrats control the House or not. 

Investigative powers is a big deal.  It provides the first actual check on Trumps power from Congress, which the country desperately needs.  Plus, House Republicans might think that if they survived the anger of 2018 they don't have to worry anymore.  Even a slim majority in the House might be enough for Republicans to get some things done so long as they kowtow hard enough to the Freedom Caucus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@dmc515, I agree with your assessment that the Democrats can pick up 15-30 seats, but the real question is should they be hoping to hit the magic 24 number? I think they may be better off winning 20-23 seats.

Nah, I think this is too cute.  I get the rationale, but as @Maithanet said responsibility attribution is primarily directed towards the president and certainly isn't really there for swing voters when your party only controls one chamber.  Plus, again as Maith said, the House is more hierarchical and the majority holds all the power.  A good leader (and whatever problems I have with Pelosi, she is an excellent and battle-tested floor leader) can hold together their caucus even at 218, and the Dems at least showing what they'd do in opposition by passing dead-end bills can help keep the base energized and hopeful - as would holding a majority in the first place.

Now, I used to think this way about the Senate because members are more independent and the filibuster made a slim majority legislatively useless anyway.  But this has changed now that the majority is apparently able to rely on reconciliation to do most anything important - and, particularly, with the filibuster abolished for SCOTUS nominees you want that majority in the Senate as well.

Much (much) more important, though, as @Fez said, is the subpoena power.  A Democratic House will ensure the Trump legislative agenda is DOA as he can be bogged down in a swarm of legitimate investigations.  And not just with Russia either.

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

And I never doubted that if the bill would fail it would fail bill.

Wait, are you saying you never doubted that if the bill would fail it would fail?  That's a bold move, Cotton.  Seriously, I *think* you're saying  if the bill was delayed/motion to proceed failed it would ultimately fail.  I'm not as sure about that, but yeah, Collins' statements yesterday make it sound like they'll need to radically revise the Medicaid cuts to get her vote.  They'll need radical revision (in the other direction) to get Paul, and Collins' intransigence seems to be emboldening other moderates concerned about Medicaid.

My guesswork is McConnell can buy off Murkowski, Portman, and Capito with the $188 billion, but flipping Heller is going to be really, really hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Conservative Healthcare Policy “Expert” Guy, Avik Roy, is a Conservative Bullshit Artist.
 

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/29/15885796/medicaid-senate-gop-health-bill-benefits-bcra

Quote

Avik Roy, who has emerged as the chief defender of the Senate health bill, writes that “researchers have shown [Medicaid] has health outcomes no better than being uninsured.”

 

Quote

But the Oregon study isn’t the only important study on the effects Medicaid has on health outcomes. Just ask the authors of the Oregon study. One of them, Kate Baicker, a Harvard health economist who served on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, teamed up with fellow superstar health economist Ben Sommers and Atul Gawande (yes, that Atul Gawande) to assess the evidence of insurance expansions — particularly Medicaid expansions and the Massachusetts health reforms — on health. Their paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last week, and it’s worth reading in light of this debate.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/defenses-of-senates-health-care-plan-pathetically-dishonest.html

Quote

The task of giving an intellectual sheen to this facially absurd message has fallen upon Republican health-care adviser Avik Roy, who has sold the Senate bill in an enthusiastic media blitz. (I asked Roy this morning if he help the Senate leadership write its bill; he has not yet replied.) 

 

Quote

The second defense of the Senate bill is even more sweeping. Throwing people off Medicaid will not harm them, argues Roy, because it is “a program that researchers have shown has health outcomes no better than being uninsured.” Here Roy is repeating a claim he has made repeatedly over the years. The basis for this claim is one study of Medicaid recipients in Oregon. 

 

Quote

But you don’t need to wade into a debate over the technical merits of a single study to have a point of view on this question. As Benjamin Sommers, Atul Gawande, and Katherine Baicker point out in a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine, there are lots of studies about the effects of Medicaid. The research points overwhelmingly toward the conclusion that people benefit from having health insurance. “The body of evidence summarized here indicates that coverage expansions significantly increase patients’ access to care and use of preventive care, primary care, chronic-illness treatment, medications, and surgery,” they conclude. “These increases appear to produce significant, multifaceted, and nuanced benefits to health.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Wait, are you saying you never doubted that if the bill would fail it would fail? 

I think that's a typo.  It was supposed to be "if the bill fails, it will fail big", which makes sense.  Nobody wants to be on record supporting an unpopular bill that isn't even going to pass.  The Democrats made that mistake with carbon cap-and-trade in the House in 2010. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Wait, are you saying you never doubted that if the bill would fail it would fail?  That's a bold move, Cotton.  Seriously, I *think* you're saying  if the bill was delayed/motion to proceed failed it would ultimately fail.  I'm not as sure about that, but yeah, Collins' statements yesterday make it sound like they'll need to radically revise the Medicaid cuts to get her vote.  They'll need radical revision (in the other direction) to get Paul, and Collins' intransigence seems to be emboldening other moderates concerned about Medicaid.

My guesswork is McConnell can buy off Murkowski, Portman, and Capito with the $188 billion, but flipping Heller is going to be really, really hard.

How dare you call me out on my typos that cause sentences to lose all meaning?! :P

No, what I'm saying is that if the bill was going to fail, it was never going to fail by just 3 Republicans voting no, 49-51. Senators generally have spines, but they aren't that strong. And also, why vote yes on an unpopular bill that won't even pass?

The bill was either going to pass 51-50 with Pence tie-breaking, or going to fail 42-58 or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maith, Fez, dmc,

When I have a little more time I'll explain my rationale, but in the meantime, priorities: 
 

 

Our President, ladies and gentlemen. And to think he was good friends with them too. Now you see why his cabinet publicly sucked up to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fez said:

How dare you call me out on my typos that cause sentences to lose all meaning?! :P

No, what I'm saying is that if the bill was going to fail, it was never going to fail by just 3 Republicans voting no, 49-51. Senators generally have spines, but they aren't that strong. And also, why vote yes on an unpopular bill that won't even pass?

The bill was either going to pass 51-50 with Pence tie-breaking, or going to fail 42-58 or more.

Gotcha.  And yes, you're right effectively that if the bill doesn't get to 51-50, many more Senators will abandon it.  However, McConnell isn't going to schedule a failing vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Our President, ladies and gentlemen. And to think he was good friends with them too. Now you see why his cabinet publicly sucked up to him. 

"She was bleeding badly from a face-lift.  I said no."  Oye.  Can't wait for Joe's reaction tomorrow, especially now that their relationship is public.  Also, what's up with his obsession in attacking women through implying menstruation?  I think our president may be a bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

My guesswork is McConnell can buy off Murkowski, Portman, and Capito with the $188 billion, but flipping Heller is going to be really, really hard.

McConnell doesn't need Heller, which is why he gave him a free pass to vote against it.  If Health Care passes, it is almost assuredly with 50+1 votes, and Heller + Collins opposed.  So he needs to shore up support from the right wing to get Paul, Johnson, etc on board, and buy off the more moderate senators in states that are going to be hit hardest, namely Murkowski, Capito, Portman, Gardner and Flake.  That's a tough task, but there's a lot of money available to buy people off. 

McConnell may be able to do it, it depends on how much momentum the "get off this sinking ship" narrative gets established during the Senate recess.  If McConnell comes back and there are 15 senators who don't want to vote for the bill, then it's over.  But if he's still only looking at a lot of "maybes", 4 far right guys who are on record as "want to vote yes" and a few moderates that need state level incentives, then he could still make it work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell doesn't need Heller, which is why he gave him a free pass to vote against it.  If Health Care passes, it is almost assuredly with 50+1 votes, and Heller + Collins opposed.  So he needs to shore up support from the right wing to get Paul, Johnson, etc on board, and buy off the more moderate senators in states that are going to be hit hardest, namely Murkowski, Capito, Portman, Gardner and Flake.  That's a tough task, but there's a lot of money available to buy people off. 

McConnell may be able to do it, it depends on how much momentum the "get off this sinking ship" narrative gets established during the Senate recess.  If McConnell comes back and there are 15 senators who don't want to vote for the bill, then it's over.  But if he's still only looking at a lot of "maybes", 4 far right guys who are on record as "want to vote yes" and a few moderates that need state level incentives, then he could still make it work. 

I think it happens. There will be wheeling and dealing over the break, but the headline is too important to the base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell doesn't need Heller, which is why he gave him a free pass to vote against it.  If Health Care passes, it is almost assuredly with 50+1 votes, and Heller + Collins opposed.  So he needs to shore up support from the right wing to get Paul.

It is very clear at this point he's not getting Paul with anything resembling the current bill - dude now wants to split it into two bills.  He needs to flip Heller, or they're gonna have to start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

It is very clear at this point he's not getting Paul with anything resembling the current bill - dude now wants to split it into two bills.  He needs to flip Heller, or they're gonna have to start over.

We'll see.  I think it might be personal between Paul and McConnell, since they're both from KY.  But I still think Paul is grandstanding, and can be bought off.  If push comes to shove, he is not providing the no vote that kills this bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think it happens. There will be wheeling and dealing over the break, but the headline is too important to the base. 

I'm not sure that's true anymore. The main media drivers of the base, talk radio and sites like Brietbart, are focused mostly "fake news!," immigration, "political correctness," and a few other cultural issues. Health care is not driving their conversations these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

We'll see.  I think it might be personal between Paul and McConnell, since they're both from KY.  But I still think Paul is grandstanding, and can be bought off.  If push comes to shove, he is not providing the no vote that kills this bill. 

Paul has distinguished his own ideological brand, established it with "street cred," has an intense loathing for the Senate leadership (and yes, particularly McConnell due to their history), and is also fairly insane.  To him, this bill is not "repeal," plain and simple.  And he can't be "bought," at least not in the way normal legislators are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...