US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I agree--progressive in how I talk about it is very much about the current capitalist structure, and candidates who aren't interested in that (in some ways, looking backwards to FDR), then I don't consider them progressive. I posted an article yesterday about this. Centrist/moderates have moved to the right by historic measures. That's just the way it is in the U.S. right now.

If your point is that moderate candidates like Biden or Klobuchar are progressive, I will militantly disagree.

You've got to lower your bar, man. You can't have a big tent party and have purity tests at the same time. 

[felice]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

I personally would be worse off with M4A, I'd have higher taxes and no reduction in health care costs

You'd really let your employer get away with not giving you a massive raise to make up for the insurance premiums they're no longer paying? That should be an essential component of M4A - employers must be legally required to replace withdrawn insurance with other compensation of equal value (or allow employees to choose between insurance and cash if private insurance continues to exist).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's interesting to see the Bloomberg is now in fourth on RCP's national aggregate poll. While I ultimately think he's just setting his money on fire, I must admit his advertising has been really solid. He's doing a great job at casting himself as both progressive and practical while nuking Trump left and right. I'd actually consider supporting him if not for, yeah know, the whole racist policing policy thingy.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You've got to lower your bar, man. You can't have a big tent party and have purity tests at the same time. 

It's not about purity tests. It's about if they're out to help the people who need help. I think this argument about "purity" is a simple way of dismissing suffering and need from people. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

18 minutes ago, felice said:

You'd really let your employer get away with not giving you a massive raise to make up for the insurance premiums they're no longer paying? That should be an essential component of M4A - employers must be legally required to replace withdrawn insurance with other compensation of equal value (or allow employees to choose between insurance and cash if private insurance continues to exist).

I've thought about this, and my cynical side sees this as not happening. I have a friend who makes this point as a reason to not get M4A (all the unions negotiated for the shitty health insurance they have). I agree with that. But in education, I can't imagine teachers' salaries going up to compensate. This is just another argument people might use against M4A. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

It's not about purity tests. It's about if they're out to help the people who need help. I think this argument about "purity" is a simple way of dismissing suffering and need from people. 

And yet you dismiss things like ACA and the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act as not doing enough or not helping enough, and appear to be entirely dismissive of anyone who does not want to help in precisely the way that you believe is the only way forward. Furthermore, you aren't willing to help some people more; you're desiring only a total solution or nothing at all, and would rather be a fighter that wins nothing instead of compromise. 

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Ormond said:

OK, not that you were seriously asking, but as a name expert I can answer that.

Heh, appreciate the response!  For me, Zephyr connotes Zephyrhills in terms of the water bottle company.  Looking it up, seems that's Florida based, so that must be where I'm getting that from (when I lived in Orlando). 

Also, your mentioning of "hippy" names made me think of an amusing anecdote.  A few years back my department hired a professor named "Jae-Jae."  She started over the summer when I had to take comps (comprehensive exams) and she was one of the two evaluators for the political behavior portion of my comps.  I interacted via email with her a few times before meeting her in person, and I just assumed based on the name she was of Asian heritage/ethnicity.  Then when I did meet her, nope, your regular caucasian from Michigan.  Few months later I was in my diss chair's office talking about things - and he is very socially awkward - so she pops in to have brief small talk, and my diss chair is like "hey, where did the name Jae-Jae come from?"  She just kinda shrugs and says "my parents were a couple of hippies."

6 hours ago, sologdin said:

hey, congrats! good luck on the defense thereof.  was gonna ask initially how your thesis works with the old iron triangle idea, but i see your later paragraphs get into that. can we get maybe an iron mobius strip that cuts out the lobbyists and lobbyists-turned-market-stalinist-bureaucrat?

Thanks, appreciate it!  Got some time til the defense, will be some time in April when everyone can get together.  And yeah, it would be nice to institute/codify more firm rules against regulatory capture and the revolving door.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You literally said warren wasnt a progressive like 4 days ago! 

Hey man, a lot can change in 4 days!

8 hours ago, Fez said:

Interesting. Thanks.

2 hours ago, horangi said:

Thanks for sharing DMC. 

Interesting responses, I'll get back to you both.  Don't wanna say I'm too drunk to respond - cuz that'd be wildly inconsistent with past behavior - but I'm just spent right now.  Never had to lecture for 5 hours in one day before, but that's Fridays for me this semester.  I'm so sick of my own voice.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Few months later I was in my diss chair's office talking about things - and he is very socially awkward - so she pops in to have brief small talk, and my diss chair is like "hey, where did the name Jae-Jae come from?"  She just kinda shrugs and says "my parents were a couple of hippies."

This is almost verbatim what I tell people what the origin of my name is, and I usually say "and I got really lucky, it could have been a LOT worse"

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And yet you dismiss things like ACA and the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act as not doing enough or not helping enough, and appear to be entirely dismissive of anyone who does not want to help in precisely the way that you believe is the only way forward. Furthermore, you aren't willing to help some people more; you're desiring only a total solution or nothing at all, and would rather be a fighter that wins nothing instead of compromise. 

Cool mind reading.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

Cool mind reading.

Nope, just reading. Again, this is stuff you said a few days ago, to me, about my son. 

[Fez]

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's interesting to see the Bloomberg is now in fourth on RCP's national aggregate poll. While I ultimately think he's just setting his money on fire, I must admit his advertising has been really solid. He's doing a great job at casting himself as both progressive and practical while nuking Trump left and right. I'd actually consider supporting him if not for, yeah know, the whole racist policing policy thingy.

I've seen the argument, and I find it somewhat compelling, that Bloomberg isn't trying to win at all (though he'd happily become the moderate safeguard if Biden fell apart). Instead, Bloomberg wants to attack Trump, which is what almost all his ads have been doing. As a candidate Bloomberg gets cheaper ad rates, and he can't be dismissed as someone taking potshots from the outside.

This read is in line with his promise to spend a huge amount regardless of who the nominee is; he wants to bring down Trump at all costs.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I've seen the argument, and I find it somewhat compelling, that Bloomberg isn't trying to win at all (though he'd happily become the moderate safeguard if Biden fell apart). Instead, Bloomberg wants to attack Trump, which is what almost all his ads have been doing. As a candidate Bloomberg gets cheaper ad rates, and he can't be dismissed as someone taking potshots from the outside.

This read is in line with his promise to spend a huge amount regardless of who the nominee is; he wants to bring down Trump at all costs.

I hope he's also spending lots of money on efforts to combat voter disenfranchisement in states like North and South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and everywhere else the Republicans are trying to rob citizens of their voting rights.

[Maithanet]

49 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

Whoops

[Freshwater Spartan]

Think of how difficult it was to pass Obamcare with 60 Democratic senators (then 59). Because of Joe Lieberman we couldn't even get a public option. Now try to pass m4 all with at most 51 dem senators. No way it will happen. Democratic will has nothing to do with it. Merits for the policy have nothing to do with it. Best we can hope for is a strengthening of Obamcare and I wouldn't get my hopes too high to that.

[Kalbear]

57 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Dang, this Jacobin piece (unlimited clicks provided by the socialists!) hyping Bernie over Warren from an electoral viability standpoint feels pretty convincing to me even knowing their biases. 

They would make a strong case if the US electorate looked like Vermont. Heck, comparing Massachusetts to Vermont alone is ridiculous. 

Mostly, it completely ignores the big elephant in the room - how Sanders actually did in the primary in 2016. Unlike Warren we actually have data on how he did in all 50 states, and it isn't great. 

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

Lots of interesting responses on Medicare for all.

There's something I've wondered about which Maith touched on which is whether M4A is politically impossible now because Democrats will not actually go for it.   

Imagine a hypothetical:  Sanders become the nominee and wins.  He continues to hammer private health insurance and drug companies throughout the campaign as he's always done.  The Senate goes about as well as possible for the Dems and they retake a narrow majority.

What happens next?  Imagine behind the scenes what it might be on the Dem side.  I cannot imagine any way that you could get every Senate Democrat to support a M4A bill to say nothing of the 60 threshold.  The reasons for this would probably be varied as some would have Lieberman-esque corrupt reasons to not support it and some might genuinely just not believe in it philosophically.  But beyond that there's the trauma of the Obamacare experience and the worry about how much the GOP will just never accept it.  There will be Senators who are philosophically fine with M4A and know that many of their constituents want it but feel that it's political capital cost is just hopelessly high.  That might have been another way in which the Republican opposition to Obamacare paid off for them is that they made the pursuit of healthcare reform seem untenable.  

Is there any way we would actually see M4A even if a President Sanders is elected with a Senate majority and a big House majority?  I kind of doubt it.   

 

 

ETA:  Merkley just said on CNN, more or less, that he thinks no way do four Republicans break ranks and we're not getting witnesses.  

 

 

Well yes, if the only 2 choices are nothing significant happening with healthcare and Medicare for all being fully implemented in 6 months or less time, you are right, nothing is going to happen. And if you believe that, then if you are a healthcare voter, you can safely vote for Biden as it won't change policy anyway. 

That ignore that a broad things in between those scenarios might happen, likely using reconciliation. It also ignores Warren might do something else, say on drug prices, with the federal government agencies. We may be underestimating her creativity. 

And of course, Biden may purposely use his power to limit changes and make only cosmetic changes to healthcare. And the worst part is then the entire party will have to say how great it is, voters included, or help the neo-Republican party gain more power.

There is a worse scenario than even the Biden scenario. The Clinton scenario, swinging big and missing, then the party being afraid to tackle healthcare for 20 years or more.

Oh, and I don't think Republican tantrums over Obamacare have been effective. They do best electorally when they mask their thuggish opinions on healthcare. It helped kill them in 2018 and Trump's numbers are tanking on healthcare right now.

[Altherion]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Mostly, it completely ignores the big elephant in the room - how Sanders actually did in the primary in 2016. Unlike Warren we actually have data on how he did in all 50 states, and it isn't great. 

Really? He won 43% of the vote and 46% of the pledged delegates despite the facts that the party overwhelmingly supported his opponent, set up the schedule to benefit her and some of its operatives even outright cheated to help her win. Sanders did much better than most people expected given what he was up against.

[Martell Spy]

12 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think there's also risk though in a huge defeat which would help the actual Republican party, and they could make the current system dramatically worse.  

Yes, like the Clinton example. And it's more likely to happen the larger you swing. However, popular government benefits are very durable. And opponents often do terrible political damage to themselves trying to take such benefits away.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

Of course, unless there's an end to the filibuster.

If there was and 51 all of the sudden mattered then I think Democratic will would matter tremendously, but even there I'm convinced that the will would not be there.

 

Dang, this Jacobin piece (unlimited clicks provided by the socialists!) hyping Bernie over Warren from an electoral viability standpoint feels pretty convincing to me even knowing their biases.  I take major issue with one line about how this is not because Warren is a woman and because she is bad candidate (and I don't think the article weirdly even tries to back up that assertion), but the rest of the piece is pretty data-driven and does at first blush make me worry that Warren would get crushed.  A part of the argument rests heavily on the rural-ish districts but it also has these comparisons between Warren how she ran compared to other Dems that looks worrying.  

This is what the Republicans have the the Dems don't. Republicans tend to vote together (we've had some good spoilers for sure, like healthcare), but Democrats? They can't pass shit with a super majority. They are dysfunctional, and I just know they'll step on their dicks this time too. Probably because it will be Biden against Trump. Biden, who has always been considered a gaffe prone butt of the joke up until...now?

[Kalbear]

51 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Really? He won 43% of the vote and 46% of the pledged delegates despite the facts that the party overwhelmingly supported his opponent, set up the schedule to benefit her and some of its operatives even outright cheated to help her win. Sanders did much better than most people expected given what he was up against.

Alternately, he only managed 43% of the vote against someone who lost to trump.