US Politics: Celebrating and despairing too early;No poll bump for Trump yet.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

The GOP had 55+ from 2005-2007, and 1997-2001.  The Dems had 55+ from 1987-1995, then all but two years from 1959-1981.  Point is it happens much more frequently than 60+ while still maintaining some semblance of a mandate (particularly if the party concurrently enjoys unified government, which obviously would be necessary to enact significant policy change). 

Oh, I can expect the GOP to get it fairly regularly. That's not in doubt. But you're saying about the dems like 1985 was something comparable to now. Come on, man. 

Heck, you're already saying that we're hosed and beyond the point of no return:

Quote

I don't think so anymore.  Pork is great for greasing the wheels, but the wheel in the sky has thoroughly stopped turning.  To the point that even I'm confused by my weird metaphors.

So why is the filibuster somehow this untouchable thing, when you yourself are saying you don't know how we fix this?

5 hours ago, DMC said:

 You can reasonably plan for what's going to happen in politics for the next 10 years all you want, but you're almost certainly going to be wrong.  Nobody on earth can predict congressional party makeup over 10 years with any sort of credible confidence. 

We've been able to predict the House fairly well from 2010 to now. And this election was the most easily guessed election ever based entirely on partisan lean, which beat 2016 and its partisan lean. 

5 hours ago, DMC said:

As for planning to pass sweeping legislation after "massive disasters," sweeping policy change is always predicated on recessions.  Stagflation brought us the Reagan revolution.  The early-nineties recession brought us Bill Clinton and the Gingrich Congress and all that entailed (welfare reform, bipartisan deregulation, etc.)  Even the Bush tax cuts were rather ironically (or I suppose just plain stupidly) passed during either the dot-com recession (2001) or Dubya's Iraq War (2003). 

Yeah, I think you're reaching there. The dot com bust didn't kill the economy in general, and for the most part sweeping legislation happened because of 911, not because of anything prior to that. Hell, Bush basically ran on a 'things are chill, let's go to my ranch' vibe for his first 300 days. 

And I'm not talking about passing 'sweeping' legislation. I'm talking about passing any legislation. If you want our country to be run by actual laws and not a combination of executive orders and judicial decisions, you have to stop the obstruction. 

5 hours ago, DMC said:

 I'm honestly hard-pressed to think of any significant policy change in the modern era that wasn't the result of some kind of economic turmoil.  You could say the Civil Rights movement and mostly be right, but even the 64 CRA and 65 VRA (as well as LBJ's Great Society) were passed in the wake of Kennedy's assassination.  King was about to connect the CRM to the economy as he embarked on his War on Poverty, then he was promptly killed.  Hrm, how bout that? 

GHWB's ADA comes to mind. Clinton's sweeping justice reforms. GWB's tax cuts. More importantly, all of these got passed with bipartisan support. Could something like the ADA pass now? Very unlikely. 

5 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't even really know what this means, let alone why you're so sure and exact about 11 years.

Climate change. We have approximately 11 years before we stop thinking about ways to curb carbon and start thinking about ways to mitigate disaster scenarios regularly. We're already likely hosed somewhat, but if we continue on our trajectory or keep getting worse for the next 11 years without making any changes, we're looking at massive ecological catastrophe. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

They aren't going to kill Ginsburg.  And even if they were they'd wait until after the 2020 election and only if the Dems got a majority in the Senate.  The courts are a long game.  Same goes for arresting Obama - it gets them nothing and only increases opposition.  I hope Ginsberg lives to be 3,000 but it's not going to happen.  They can just wait.

That makes no sense. You want to kill Ginsburg now, while you have control of the senate. Killing her later when the replacement could be blocked is ridiculous. 

But yes, I've said for a long time that the most powerful thing that an anti-choice activist could do is to assassinate one of the liberal justices. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Railed At Illegal Immigration But Now Owns The Worst Numbers In A Decade
His erratic decisions and inflammatory rhetoric, critics say, are actually making things worse at the Mexico border.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-illegal-immigration-record_n_5caf9020e4b098b9a2d0d281

 

There is a parallel that perhaps the right can relate to understand this phenomenon: Whenever there's a mass shooting, and there's talk of gun restrictions being brought in, there is a boost in gun buying.

[Darth Richard II]

Trump is the no god?

[ants]

12 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I actually think we would end up with a UK type system and so there would be private insurance that still exists but less of it.  I'm perfectly ok with it being allowed, but the current system we have now is just crazy. 

That's more the Australian system.

The UK system has hardly any private health insurance.  

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Oh, I can expect the GOP to get it fairly regularly. That's not in doubt. But you're saying about the dems like 1985 was something comparable to now. Come on, man. 

Sure, the Dems aren't the same as they were in 1985 just as the GOP is not the same as they were in 1995.  The point there was to point out the frequency of 55+ Senate majorities for either party.  It is very likely there will be at least one economic downturn in the next 10 years - frankly we've already lasted strangely long without a recession.  If the public blames the GOP for it, it's subsequently very reasonable to expect the Dems can gain 55+ Senators.  If it goes the other way, then yeah it's gonna be tough.  But again, you don't know that and it's pointless to argue.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Heck, you're already saying that we're hosed and beyond the point of no return:

Quote

I don't think so anymore.  Pork is great for greasing the wheels, but the wheel in the sky has thoroughly stopped turning.  To the point that even I'm confused by my weird metaphors.

So why is the filibuster somehow this untouchable thing, when you yourself are saying you don't know how we fix this?

This is the classic "it can't get any worse so why not?" question.  Like when your favorite team has a really bad second baseman, or shooting guard, or tight end.  Yes, it can get worse.  And the quickest and most expedient way to potentially make it worse is by abolishing the filibuster.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

We've been able to predict the House fairly well from 2010 to now. And this election was the most easily guessed election ever based entirely on partisan lean, which beat 2016 and its partisan lean. 

Not 10 years out dude.  C'mon, that's fucking ridiculous and doesn't really warrant a response.  Even simply making the partisan lean variable relies on elections 2-8 years beforehand.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The dot com bust didn't kill the economy in general, and for the most part sweeping legislation happened because of 911, not because of anything prior to that. Hell, Bush basically ran on a 'things are chill, let's go to my ranch' vibe for his first 300 days. 

The 2001 tax cuts were passed before 9/11.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And I'm not talking about passing 'sweeping' legislation. I'm talking about passing any legislation. If you want our country to be run by actual laws and not a combination of executive orders and judicial decisions, you have to stop the obstruction. 

This is a bit overwrought.  Congress does still pass legislation - that's why the shutdown is still a big deal.  What they don't do much anymore is pass the president's legislative agenda at near the rate they used to.  Right now that's a good thing.  The Senate was designed to slow progress on legislation that is driven by popular sentiment rather than sensible policy.  Keeping the filibuster but lowering the threshold to 55 is a good compromise to maintain that conception while also acknowledging getting 60 votes is unrealistic in a polarized era in which cloture has been weaponized.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

GHWB's ADA comes to mind. Clinton's sweeping justice reforms. GWB's tax cuts. More importantly, all of these got passed with bipartisan support. Could something like the ADA pass now? Very unlikely. 

The only one of those three I'd qualify as "sweeping," or even significant, legislation is Dubya's tax cuts - which we've already covered.  I could totally see the ADA passing now, yes.  Dubya signed an expansion of the bill in 2008.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Climate change. We have approximately 11 years before we stop thinking about ways to curb carbon and start thinking about ways to mitigate disaster scenarios regularly. We're already likely hosed somewhat, but if we continue on our trajectory or keep getting worse for the next 11 years without making any changes, we're looking at massive ecological catastrophe. 

Yeah, I did kind of know what you were getting it with the 11 years, just wanted you to state it outright.  I hate putting a number on shit like that, and think it's a little silly for the public to regurgitate it.  We should be thinking of ways to curb carbon AND ways to mitigate regular disasters right now, and in 5 years, and in 11 years, and in 15 years.

[lokisnow]

It’s insane to think even one federally elected republican would vote for the ADA today and about twenty percent of democrats would vehemently  condemn it.

[DMC]

I strongly disagree with your theoretical whip count.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Huh, would not have guessed that'd be the top candidate but will check that out.  Would have thought the SEC, EPA, or FDA, would have been likely options.

All three of the agencies mentioned (well, the FDA is arguable) enjoy much more political independence than your regular cabinet departments and subsequent agencies.  Independence is measurable, at least structurally, and Jennifer Selin* has developed a way to do just that on two dimensions - "politicization" and "centralization."  Her work is pretty essential to my dissertation.

*The working paper I linked is not a thorough representation on her development of the measures, it was more the only thing I could find that was publicly available.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I strongly disagree with your theoretical whip count.

One of the things that tickles me most about you is your logical blindness. Any strength can become a crutch when relied upon to exclusivity.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

One of the things that tickles me most about you is your logical blindness. Any strength can become a crutch when relied upon to exclusivity.

Ok, this time I legit do not know what this means, nor how it's related to the quoted in any way.  "Any strength can become a crutch."  K.  That's something you read from a fortune cookie and say "aw, I got a stupid one."  Anyway, want me to pack you a hit?

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DMC said:

Ok, this time I legit do not know what this means, nor how it's related to the quoted in any way.  "Any strength can become a crutch."  K.  That's something you read from a fortune cookie and say "aw, I got a stupid one."  Anyway, want me to pack you a hit?

Already halfway through my first bowl. Sun's getting real low, so I'm firing up the Granddaddy Purple.

Regarding my fortune-cookieish comment, I was attempting to suggest in as Jace a way as possible, that you are (judging from our interactions) a very logical individual who assess data to reach conclusions. Excellent character trait. But some very very very smart people have ended up holding nothing but salt because the things that brought them low had not a thing to do with logic or intelligence or even fully functioning amygdalas.

People are not rational, you know this. I know you know this because this is page one chapter one of the sociology textbook you didn't read for your fancy poly sci degree. Or whatever the hell they're calling it where you went.

I contend that a fair amount of what others perceive as perceptive failures on your part are in fact variables that you consciously or otherwise dismiss as aberrations, under the logical assumption that the erratic or disturbing condition cannot be allowed to continue.

If I were to dramatically (almost criminally) shorthand a lot of your posts they sound something like

"this thing is broken and it's a problem and those fucking bastards and it'll be straightened out because of this and you see the X over the Whale under the second tangent here? That's the cosine, and when that links up with your Y-intercept? Ok, see how it kinda looks like a drunk cowboy on retainer if you shift the paper this way? Yep! That's it! That's why it's all gonna be ok and Democracy is saved in the long run."

But I know I for one sometimes sit here at my desk and say "But DMC, they don't want to fix it." And I don't want to accuse you of not understanding this, but from where I sit there's some kind of dissonance between the DMC who logically and impressively details the information and draws conclusions that make sense and the one who sorta sidesteps the fact that the system can't ever get better if the keyholders won't make it better. And they have no incentive to do so.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

People are not rational, you know this. I know you know this because this is page one chapter one of the sociology textbook you didn't read for your fancy poly sci degree. Or whatever the hell they're calling it where you went.

  First, I totally love that you decided to explain your rationale.  Second, I love the "sun's getting real low" reference.  Third, people are indeed not rational - that's why I'm against the movement in my discipline towards formal models.  So professionally you could not get a better advocate than me in that regard.  Fourth, I don't value my knowledge based on degrees, but rather that knowledge I've attained.  I've read and researched more about American politics, generally, than almost certainly anyone reading this.  That's why I claim to be an expert, not a degree.  There are plenty of people with phuds that have no fucking idea what they're talking about.  There's a great Big Kahuna sequence about this, but Kevin Spacey is verbitten now.

12 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I contend that a fair amount of what others perceive as perceptive failures on your part are in fact variables that you consciously or otherwise dismiss as aberrations, under the logical assumption that the erratic or disturbing condition cannot be allowed to continue.

I mean, aberrations happen all the time, but I'm a little confused as to what you consider I consider aberrations?  Trump's election?  Nah, that actually was expected, I just didn't want to believe it.

15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

"this thing is broken [...snip]

Is that how I sound to you?  Really?  I try not to sound like that, although I suppose many of the things I link sound like that, but that's pretty inherent.  Not sure how I can fix that, I am what I am.

18 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

the one who sorta sidesteps the fact that the system can't ever get better if the keyholders won't make it better. And they have no incentive to do so.

In general, sure, the keyholders have no incentive to do so, not sidestepping that.  You broke into a conversation that was derived from whether the filibuster should be abolished, or changed to 55+, or stay the same.  In that regard, even the keyholders aren't sure about the right answer.  The other thing we were directly discussing was whether the ADA could be passed now.  And again, yes, I think it could.  It's a winning issue.  The GOP has relented on plenty of stuff they used to be vehemently against to avoid fighting a losing cause.  This is demonstrable over the past decade.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, ants said:

That's more the Australian system.

The UK system has hardly any private health insurance.  

I was surprised at this assertion, because I don't think it's that uncommon in the UK, going by anecdotal experience. But it seems to be only around 10-11% of people in the UK have private health insurance. That's lower than I would have thought, but I'm not sure it's 'hardly any'. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That makes no sense. You want to kill Ginsburg now, while you have control of the senate. Killing her later when the replacement could be blocked is ridiculous. 

But yes, I've said for a long time that the most powerful thing that an anti-choice activist could do is to assassinate one of the liberal justices. 

Should have clarified - point was it'd make more sense to rush through a new justice after the 2020 election but before the new Senate is sworn in (in the unlikely event Dems get a senate majority) In the meantime just wait for nature to do it's thing.  No assassination necessary.

[Maithanet]

Buttigeig moves into third place in Iowa poll.

Quote

The Monmouth University poll shows Biden, who hasn’t officially entered the race, is the first choice of roughly a quarter of likely caucusgoers, 27 percent. He’s followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with 16 percent and Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., with 9 percent.

That places Buttigieg marginally ahead of a handful of candidates who entered the race with more established profiles: Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are at 7 percent, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) is at 6 percent, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is at 4 percent and Sen. Corey Booker at 3 percent.

That's a little surprising, but he clearly has momentum and charisma.  That's a damn good start for a politician in a crowded field. 

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Buttigeig moves into third place in Iowa poll.

That's a little surprising, but he clearly has momentum and charisma.  That's a damn good start for a politician in a crowded field. 

He’s the only person in the field that I haven’t heard anything negative about outside of claims that he can’t win. The latter seems to be fading now, and I think he has a great chance at cannibalizing a lot voters who currently are for Biden, assuming Biden doesn’t get into the race.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I remember simpler times when cannibalizing voters was considered a net negative for a candidates. 

The times they are a changin!

[lokisnow]

Pence is going full martyr attack on mayor Pete, claiming Pete is attacking his faith/religion.

You see, Pence is Saul of Tarsus, completely for active vicious persecution of people like Pete. He has a massive host of victims he has hurt over the decades with his vindictive, fanatical persecution and campaigns fueled by hate.

but if Pete says something mild against the pogroms endorsed and carried out by Pence, well now, Pence is now the persecuted one and the total and complete victim of persecution and hate.

cant wait to see literally every media outlet support Pence and scold Pete, they know who the real victim is! And it sure is a relief to have it be so clearly restated, thanks for saving the media from not considering Christians victims Pence, a true persecuted American martyr hero!

[lokisnow]

13 hours ago, DMC said:

I strongly disagree with your theoretical whip count.

It’s 100% accurate for the republican whip count, but you may be right, the corporate behemoths could probably persuade 40% of democrats to vociferously oppose the ADA in 2019. So I was probably severely underrating the degree of opposition.

The ADA would be a mammoth loser of an issue in 2019 and virtually all democrat leadership would be voicing hostile anti ADA neo liberal opposition talking points constantly.