U.S. Politics: Self Medicating

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Do you think the ACA as it stands currently solves the health care crises, guarantees quality health care for all and serves as a model law that will be upheld for future generations of what is right and true?

I think getting ~ 20 million people insured that previously weren't is a pretty fucking good start.  In fact, the greatest start since the Great Society.  Is it perfect?  No.  Will it be what future generations build off of to try and provide more thoroughly universal and cheap healthcare?  Undoubtedly.

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Do you think the ACA as it stands currently solves the health care crises, guarantees quality health care for all and serves as a model law that will be upheld for future generations of what is right and true? 

I don't.

I don't either. But, after trying to get some kind of healthcare reform, since the 1940s, that advanced the goal of universal coverage, it was a major breakthrough. And probably, shifted public opinion towards achieving universal healthcare.

And trying to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions wasn't a small deal.

Not everything has to be "all or nothing". Its like people on the left say, "we either get single payer or we are taking our ball and going home". That is a ridiculous position to take, even if I think ideally that single payer would be good policy.

[Freshwater Spartan]

Just now, DMC said:

I think getting ~ 20 million people insured that previously weren't is a pretty fucking good start.  In fact, the greatest start since the Great Society.  Is it perfect?  No.  Will it be what future generations build off of to try and provide more thoroughly universal and cheap healthcare?  Undoubtedly.

Agree with your first question and answer. Not convinced on the second.

[Freshwater Spartan]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't either. But, after trying to get some kind of healthcare reform, since the 1940s, that advanced the goal of universal coverage, it was a major breakthrough. And probably, shifted public opinion towards achieving universal healthcare.

And trying to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions wasn't a small deal.

Not everything has to be "all or nothing".

Don't disagree. I think some have latched on to my less than enthusiastic comment on the ACA. My main point was that Obama was a lousy political leader

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Agree with your first question and answer. Not convinced on the second.

How bout this question - would you rather those 20 million people not have health insurance?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

My main point was that Obama was a lousy political leader

That'd be the "vapid and baseless criticism" I was referring to.  Because it is.

[DanteGabriel]

54 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

 Well said. Obama lacked the instincts and temperament to be strong brass knuckles political leader that could lead his party to win elections and passing legislation that will stand the test of time. The jury is still out on the ultimate impact of the ACA. Maybe it won't be gutted. Maybe it lays the foundation for future reform.

My hangup is that he couldn't win elections when it wasn't about him. Maybe Obama was effective but he was a poor party leader. I think you are fixated on 2009-2010. I often think about the other years.

 

Obama couldn't be a brass knuckles leader. White America was traumatized enough by his almost flawlessly milquetoast presentation. Remember the Skip Gates incident, how many fragile snowflakes lost their shit because he said that a cop who arrested a middle-aged black man on his own porch had acted stupidly? He became the proto-Kaepernick in the eyes of a lot of white people.

The white United States is not ready to have a black leader do anything but coo positive platitudes about how not-racist they are. A black leader was never going to be able to deliver the kind of change people said they wanted. As soon as a black man raises his voice or displays anger, half the audience is ready to call 911 on him. There was a whole running Key and Peele bit about Obama's anger translator because he could never show real aggression.

Obama did underestimate the bad faith and willingness to destroy norms of the Republican Party. I'm not sure he could have done much about it. Any real social change will have to be spearheaded by a white plutocrat (see FDR or Lyndon Johnson) because Americans don't trust anyone else to bring it.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Don't disagree. I think some have latched on to my less than enthusiastic comment on the ACA. My main point was that Obama was a lousy political leader

I don't think he was a lousy political leader. But, do think he was a bit naive about the mindset of the Republican Party.

Let's recall the fact that John Bonehead  had to write cryptic email messages about budget negotiations because he couldn't let it be known that he might be willing to compromise with the Obama administration.

[Freshwater Spartan]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

How bout this question - would you rather those 20 million people not have health insurance?

No

[DMC]

I don't think Obama was "naive" about GOP obstructionism inasmuch as he was averse to pissing people off.  Like Dante said, the point is rather moot in regards to policy outcomes or really anything else of substance - other than waiting so long to get Reid to abolish the filibuster for judicial appointments.  That was dumb.

[Freshwater Spartan]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

That'd be the "vapid and baseless criticism" I was referring to.  Because it is.

I like politicians that win. Not for just themselves but for their whole party and their constituents. He lost far then he won. In my book that is lousy.   

Love the guy. But he really sucked at some things.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Any real social change will have to be spearheaded by a white plutocrat (see FDR or Lyndon Johnson) because Americans don't trust anyone else to bring it.

I'm not sure that even an FDR could have pulled it off. After Bush's obviously disastrous presidency and the "Bush Boom" failing to pan out, I think the Republican Party, and their leaders, was terrified that they had a Herbert Hoover/ FDR situation on their hands and they weren't going to let that happen again. I remember all the revisionist history about the Great Depression coming out around 2008/2009.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

He lost far then he won.

He won.  Twice.  By impressive margins even.  Last time he lost was to Bobby Rush in 2000.  Blaming state legislature seats - and even Congressional losses - on him is rather absurd when you consider the context.  I already went over this earlier in the thread.

ETA:

Quote

But bringing up the ~1000 seats Obama "lost" during his tenure isn't even revisionist history, it's just dumb history.  Obama came in on the strength of not one but two straight "wave" elections.  The Democratic strength in officeholders was literally at maximum capacity.  The Dems were always going to lose a considerable amount of seats during his tenure - without even taking into account the fact presidents almost always lose seats in Congress during midterm cycles.

 

[Guest]

Looks like the Corporate Shill wing of the Democratic party is about to cave on blanket liability protection for businesses.

Fuck these assholes.

[Gaston de Foix]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think Obama was "naive" about GOP obstructionism inasmuch as he was averse to pissing people off.  Like Dante said, the point is rather moot in regards to policy outcomes or really anything else of substance - other than waiting so long to get Reid to abolish the filibuster for judicial appointments.  That was dumb.

I think this debate about Obama's legacy amongst largely like-minded people tends to suffer from people talking past each other.   DMC and I have gotten into in the past, despite the fact that Obama is my favorite politician of my lifetime. 

Here's my simple takeaway: I think the next Dem administration (which hopefully will be Joe Biden) will not have nearly the kind of majority that Obama had in the Senate (certainly not filibuster proof) or the House at the beginning of his administration.  And they will face similar Republican obstruction.  The filibuster will have to be abolished in order to get anything meaningful done on gun reform or climate change.  Obama had a great hand in 2008-2010.  He achieved many important things.  But the three things he didn't achieve (immigration reform, climate change, gun reform) despite those great majorities (which he lost anyway) are the biggest criticism of his leadership.  They have cost the US and the world a decade or more.  And if he had played hardball at the time, the Republican outrage would have happened anyway, and you might have had a republican senate, house, president and SC in 2016 anyway.  His instincts, values and rhetoric are impeccable.  But his theory of politics didn't work.  

[Gaston de Foix]

One more thing: Merrick Garland.  He didn't have the Senate and he couldn't do anything about Republican bad faith.  I concede that. But the President has many tools to inflict pain on individual senators and on the Senate as an institution.  But he didn't use the power of his office to punish individual senators politically, punish the Senate as an institution or even relentlessly call out their bad faith. 

 

[Fez]

So fun fact, just learned that here in Virginia at least, you need to have a witness present and sign when you complete an absentee ballot. Which kinda defeats the purpose of getting a ballot to remain socially isolated when you live alone.

Apparently the county Democratic party at least is trying to provide volunteer witnesses that will remain distant from you and bring their own pens to sign the ballot envelope. But still, what a mess. And this is just for a local special election. The November election has the potential to be a shitshow.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Looks like the Corporate Shill wing of the Democratic party is about to cave on blanket liability protection for businesses.

Unsurprisingly coming primarily from the two Delaware Senators (well, and Doug Jones).  We'll see.  I don't mind if they put that on the table - as long as the get something good for it of course.

3 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Obama had a great hand in 2008-2010.  He achieved many important things.  But the three things he didn't achieve (immigration reform, climate change, gun reform) despite those great majorities (which he lost anyway) are the biggest criticism of his leadership.  They have cost the US and the world a decade or more.  And if he had played hardball at the time, the Republican outrage would have happened anyway, and you might have had a republican senate, house, president and SC in 2016 anyway.  His instincts, values and rhetoric are impeccable.  But his theory of politics didn't work.  

Fun fact:  The only president to leave office with more members of his party in the House than when he entered office since Calvin Coolidge is George H.W. Bush (175 in '89, 176 in 93).  No president did it for the Senate during that time, otherwise known as basically the last century.  Seriously, take some time to consider the regular dropoffs shown here and here, and then get back to me on how Obama's "politics didn't work."  Immigration and gun reform weren't going to work if Obama had three dragons.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

So fun fact, just learned that here in Virginia at least, you need to have a witness present and sign when you complete an absentee ballot. Which kinda defeats the purpose of getting a ballot to remain socially isolated when you live alone.

Apparently the county Democratic party at least is trying to provide volunteer witnesses that will remain distant from you and bring their own pens to sign the ballot envelope. But still, what a mess. And this is just for a local special election. The November election has the potential to be a shitshow.

You need to have a notary public sign your absentee ballot here in Oklahoma. During a pandemic. It's fucking unconscionable.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Nobody can, but if you look at the people who voted Democrat in 2018 (besides the normal coalition), a lot of them were suburban white men/women with college educations who normally vote Republican. It wasn't the Bernie, young progressives that won the Dems the House, it was former Republicans and they're the ones who will control the White House. You don't have to go right to cater to them completely but throwing a nod their way when campaigning isn't going to hurt anyone but the purists.

I have seen Rachel Bitecofer, the newly famous political scientist, say that this isn't really true -- that the increase in suburban White votes for Democrats in 2018 was a matter of generational shift, with a lot of Millennials finally being at the stage where they were starting families and moving to the suburbs, and their generation was always going to vote more Democratic. And one of the main demographic factors that turns people from being irregular voters or non-voters into reliable voters is starting a family. I don't know how much other political scientists think the data supports her interpretation.

Of course even if she's correct the newly reliable Democrat suburban Millennial voters would not necessarily be as "progressive" as Bernie Sanders or AOC.