U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 

I agree with Mormont that even if we're talking about a swing at the margins from far-left (Sanders voters) to Trump is rather implausible.  However, the point is Trump didn't need that shift because (1) many Sanders voters were disillusioned enough with the Hillary candidacy to vote third party and (2) Hillary did not turnout the solid Democratic constituencies at the levels Obama did - particularly in large cities.  

It's not too hard to find evidence on this.  Simply google "Clinton in big cities vs. Obama," and this is the first result showing the main counties in which Clinton underperformed vis-a-vis Obama were the counties of Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and to a lesser extent Flint and Toledo.  That's how you lose the Midwest.  Again, Trump got one percent less of the electorate than Romney.  He didn't win by persuading leftist voters.  He won be reinforcing his base while Clinton failed to do so.

I agree with most of the points you're making, but I don't understand how you can say it's rather implausible for Sanders supporters to vote for Trump. I'll admit up front that I don't have any statistics on hand, but I've seen enough anecdotal evidence from town halls, focus groups and just day to day life to conclude that there was a number of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. Let's say 5% of the people who came out for Sanders in the primaries supported Trump in the general. That amounts to more than three times the number of votes that made the difference in the three key Midwestern states. Now to be clear, I'm not saying that's the reason why Clinton lost, but it also shouldn't be rejected out of hand as one of the many factors that contributed to her defeat.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I will weigh in on Tywin's side of this debate.  I think that where people are going wrong is that a lot of lower information voters I've talked to (such as many of my in-laws) do not view things in a right-left way.  They felt like things were really bad in their community - no one can find a good job, crime and schools are getting worse.  Given that perspective, they are given a choice between the status quo candidate Clinton and the "establishment hates me" candidate Trump, they went with Trump.  This really frustrated me, since they definitely benefit from programs like Obamacare, medicaid and food stamps, but those details didn't really resonate with them. 

It basically boiled down to: if business-as-usual is utterly unacceptable, then people are a LOT more willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  If both Sanders and Trump were offering a shakeup of the norms, the race would have played out very differently.

Well said. Here's an interesting article that touches on some of that:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-real-reason-why-hillary-clinton-lost-in-2016/

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

I think lumping Trump/Brexit/Le Pen voters into some all encompassing group is a mistake.  Since we were talking specifically about Trump and Sanders, I'll choose to stick to that election.  The election was incredibly close and was decided by less than 100k votes, so it doesn't have to be all that significant for the difference could be made.  And the argument presented was that there are plausibly 100k voters that voted for Sanders, but didn't vote for Clinton; not that they necessarily voted for Trump (though there are some that fall into that category).  I think it's dismissive to say that it isn't plausible for that to happen.  Among my left leaning friends in the midwest it was quite pervasive.

Agreed!

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Where I got drawn into this discussion was from a comment on another thread which did draw the Le Pen/Trump parallel, and there's absolutely no doubt that there is a narrative on both sides of the political aisle that says this is all part of a worldwide trend. It's the idea of traditional white working-class voters left feeling left behind by capitalism and ignored by the preoccupation of their left-wing leaders with social equality, and in response turning to barely disguised racists because they promise to do something about capitalism.

I worry about the willingness of some on the left - whether in the US, UK or Europe - to buy into that narrative uncritically. But that's a whole 'nother discussion, for another time.

Sorry if there was a miscommunication. I was talking specifically about Sanders and Trump, not Le Pen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Holy Shit. I thought this was dead on arrival...

 

[denstorebog]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I really doubt the legislative filibuster is going anywhere; Republicans have been clear that they view it as their most important defense whenever they're in the minority (and as Hatch pointed out recently, when it comes to the senate, Republicans usually are the minority). Also, lots of members from both parties have been clear that they consider it their most important difference from the House, an institution they look down on. Earlier this year, 61 senators signed a letter to McConnell saying they supported keeping the legislative filibuster no matter what. Schumer didn't sign the letter because it was also addressed to him as minority leader, meaning there are at most 38 votes in favor of ditching the legislative filibuster; and likely even less than that.

Fresh from the mouth of the man-turtle himself:

McConnell shoots down Trump's call to end the filibuster

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/331597-mcconnell-shoots-down-trumps-call-to-end-the-filibuster

[Commodore]

4 hours ago, The King in Black said:

How does the Freedom Caucus hold so much power in the Republican strata anyway ? For one thing these guys are bound to certain geographic regions. A large percentage of Senators from the Republican side don't agree with their agenda, nor do they need to tap in the said electorate to win again. So why are these nutjobs so powerful ?

They aren't, just like-minded so tend to vote in a bloc.

Jim Jordan always says all they ask is that people vote based on what they promised when campaigning.      

What makes them nutjobs?

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Holy Shit. I thought this was dead on arrival...

I'm confused.  You thought Trumpcare 3.0 was DOA, and now that it is confirmed you are really surprised?  Are you surprised it took this long?  Because a lot of Republicans are doing all they can not to go on record on this thing, which meant it would get a slow death.  Even now there are like 20-30 republicans who still claim to be undecided and are praying this thing will just go away. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm confused.  You thought Trumpcare 3.0 was DOA, and now that it is confirmed you are really surprised?  Are you surprised it took this long?  Because a lot of Republicans are doing all they can not to go on record on this thing, which meant it would get a slow death.  Even now there are like 20-30 republicans who still claim to be undecided and are praying this thing will just go away. 

No, I'm surprised it has any chance at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Tweet, but I didn't think this was even a possibility.

[denstorebog]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, I'n surprised it has any chance at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Tweet, but I didn't think this was even a possibility.

The tweet means that 21 have *already* said no, with many, many more undecided or even leaning no. In fact; I believe The Hill had the list at 22 already. Of course, anyone can change their opinion back to yes given enough reason, but this is practically a death sentence.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, denstorebog said:

The tweet means that 21 have *already* said no, with many, many more undecided or even leaning no. This is practically a death sentence.

Ah, thank Dog. Thanks for the breakdown. Good news then.

[denstorebog]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Ah, thank Dog. Thanks for the breakdown. Good news then.

Here - scroll down to see the list and how impossible the task looks for Ryan at the moment. (And still that fake smile never leaves his face. )

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/330717-the-hills-whip-list-who-to-watch-on-gops-new-obamacare-bill

[Maithanet]

I just can't believe the GOP is trying to vote on a health care bill that the CBO hasn't even scored.  I realize that the CBO score was absolutely devastating to getting Trumpcare passed in March, but embracing the solution of not having CBO score such an important bill is just ridiculous.  If you have to hide from what the bill actually does, why are you in such a hurry to pass it? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maithanet said:

I just can't believe the GOP is trying to vote on a health care bill that the CBO hasn't even scored.  I realize that the CBO score was absolutely devastating to getting Trumpcare passed in March, but embracing the solution of not having CBO score such an important bill is just ridiculous.  If you have to hide from what the bill actually does, why are you in such a hurry to pass it? 

Because they can say they kept their promise in the election in 2018. That's all they care about. And that ends up being one of the biggest ways that Ryan is whipping them on this. 

Again, this has nothing to do with good governance or good policies or anything. They don't care. Their electorate doesn't care. They care about two things: primary voters and election results, and of the two the former is more important for most than the latter is. 

[denstorebog]

To be fair, the insistence on ramming things through, including bypassing the CBO score, is part of the reason why many moderate Repubs are so annoyed with all of this.

[Kalbear]

Just now, denstorebog said:

To be fair, the insistence on ramming things through, including bypassing the CBO score, is part of the reason why many moderate Repubs are so annoyed with all of this.

Sure, but they're the ones in risky seats who can't vote on this and didn't campaign on repealing the ACA. They're the ones that have to pay lip service to governance. The others are in R+15 districts or more, and the only thing they have to worry about is being primaried or if Trump sinks so low that he brings the whole party down with him. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Not to mention they're also using the Senate as a backstop, telling their members that they won't have to face the fallout from a vote on this bill, either because it will be DOA in the Senate, or else because the Senate will send it back with considerable changes.

Yep, this too. This is very similar to the theater that they did 52 times before with repealing the ACA - except instead of a POTUS veto, they have the senate one. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Assuming that they're correct, which I would assume they are, would any version  bill coming back from the Senate be able to pass through conference committee to be voted on by both chambers? It seems to me any compromises made with the Senate would end up losing the support of the Freedom Caucus.

Honestly, probably? They'd likely be happy to get something or at least say that they got some compromise. 

And yes, this vote on the ACA and the repeated drama has been the deciding factor in me thinking that the US, and possibly democracy, is totally fucked. As a concept, as an institution, as everything. Just fucked. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

The US maybe. Coalition governments are able to pass legislation around the world because of the somewhat flexible nature of negotiations that can occur; here in the US there are just too many inflexible blocs that prevent certain legislation from happening.

The spending bill is a good example of when compromise works.

[Fez]

49 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Holy Shit. I thought this was dead on arrival...

 

Bad headline there. 22 public "no" votes is actually the most there's ever been outside of the Freedom Caucus; the issue for the GOP is that most of the couple dozen "undecided" are also no votes right now. But up until now there's never been a public majority (counting Democrats) against the bill without the Freedom Caucus.

The whip count is still moving in the wrong direction, and any talk otherwise is bluster. There's a reason leadership is starting to talk about modifying the bill again to add more funds for the high risk pools. If they add enough (Kaiser estimates they need $200 billion) that may get enough moderates on board (although the biggest moderate problem has always been the Medicaid cuts), but could lead to the Freedom Caucus dropping support again.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And yes, this vote on the ACA and the repeated drama has been the deciding factor in me thinking that the US, and possibly democracy, is totally fucked. As a concept, as an institution, as everything. Just fucked. 

 Seems to me to be an example of how it works despite all the fuck-nuttery. You've had 8 years plus of the Republican party vilifying this legislation. They refer to it as Obamacare in order to get their base to hate it. They call it socialism. They say it will bankrupt us. Turns out the constituency kind of likes it. Many of the Insurance companies and HMOs seem to like it. And they can't get rid of it, even when they own the House and hold the Presidency.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Seems to me to be an example of how it works despite all the fuck-nuttery. You've had 8 years plus of the Republican party vilifying this legislation. They refer to it as Obamacare in order to get their base to hate it. They call it socialism. They say it will bankrupt us. Turns out the constituency kind of likes it. Many of the Insurance companies and HMOs seem to like it. And they can't get rid of it, even when they own the House and hold the Presidency.

But that's not because of Democracy. Its in spite of it. The only reason we got it passed in the first place is because we had a landslide election after the worst economic hit in 70 years - and that lasted all of two years before people forgot how shitty things were in the first place and then doubled down on making things twice as shitty. 

And no, they can't vote it out, they can simply kill it by defunding it in bits and pieces. 

And this is the best outcome that's going on. Seriously, having a bunch of asshats deciding that this isn't quite cruel enough to vote for is considered a victory outcome, as insurance companies get out of the market and costs go up and quality of health goes down.

Elsewhere we have the parks being audited, we have drilling opening up, we have military expansion without any kind of oversight, we have massive ethics violations that will never be investigated, we have people who care nothing for actually voting in real value to anyone, we have an electorate that will never listen to each other, we have regulations for the environment being repealed left and right, protections of citizens being violated and allies being forced to go it alone.

And here's the kicker - fully 40% of the US population thinks this is totally good. Not just 'okay' or 'give him more time', but they actually believe this is all a good thing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, probably? They'd likely be happy to get something or at least say that they got some compromise. 

I'm not so sure about that. The ACA is polling really well right now. One poll had it as high as 55% approval. The smart approach is to let the people on the far right propose a repeal bill that's DoA and then let the moderates work with Democrats to fix the ACA.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But that's not because of Democracy. Its in spite of it. The only reason we got it passed in the first place is because we had a landslide election after the worst economic hit in 70 years - and that lasted all of two years before people forgot how shitty things were in the first place and then doubled down on making things twice as shitty. 

And no, they can't vote it out, they can simply kill it by defunding it in bits and pieces. 

And this is the best outcome that's going on. Seriously, having a bunch of asshats deciding that this isn't quite cruel enough to vote for is considered a victory outcome, as insurance companies get out of the market and costs go up and quality of health goes down.

Elsewhere we have the parks being audited, we have drilling opening up, we have military expansion without any kind of oversight, we have massive ethics violations that will never be investigated, we have people who care nothing for actually voting in real value to anyone, we have an electorate that will never listen to each other, we have regulations for the environment being repealed left and right, protections of citizens being violated and allies being forced to go it alone.

And here's the kicker - fully 40% of the US population thinks this is totally good. Not just 'okay' or 'give him more time', but they actually believe this is all a good thing.

Yeah, I'm not saying we're not fucked (I think all the examples you lay out here are valid reasons as to why we are) but this one example is kind of shining a bit. It's almost starting to feel like this issue could become (if it hasn't already) another 3rd rail that the Right is just not going to be able to fuck with.