US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

[Durckad]

Yeah, the repubs and Trump rushed through the tax cut at the very end of 2017 otherwise they would've had 0 successful legislative victories for that entire year. 

The only thing a Trump presidency has over a hypothetical other Republican administration is the presence of the Trump cult. Kasich wouldn't have a coterie of fragile culture warriors out to justify and excuse every stupid thing he does. They are attached to the Trump brand not necessarily the Republican brand.

[Fez]

42 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Maith's analysis seems spot on to me. Trump's incompetence and inability to control his sphincters cost them a lot of easy legislative victories.

Also the tariffs and trade wars. Most corporate Republicans hate those, and that's a Trump special all on his own. President Kasich, Cruz, or Rubio wouldn't be bothering with them.

[Maithanet]

21 minutes ago, Durckad said:

The only thing a Trump presidency has over a hypothetical other Republican administration is the presence of the Trump cult. Kasich wouldn't have a coterie of fragile culture warriors out to justify and excuse every stupid thing he does. They are attached to the Trump brand not necessarily the Republican brand.

I agree that President Kasich has fewer die-hard fans than President Trump, but he'd also have a lot less ardent opposition.  President Kasich would definitely have a lower profile that President Trump, and there's reason to think that helps Republicans.  2010 and 2014 had 41% and 37% voter turnout, and both those elections went great for them.  In 2018, it was over 50% and the Republicans lost 40 house seats.  I think a hypothetical Kasich 2018 midterm would have that number more like 42%, and Republicans probably lose 15 seats or so, but still hold onto a narrow majority (which in the House is all that matters).

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Also the tariffs and trade wars. Most corporate Republicans hate those, and that's a Trump special all on his own. President Kasich, Cruz, or Rubio wouldn't be bothering with them.

Yeah, that's another tradeoff between the plutocrats (pro-trade) and the working class Republicans (anti-trade).  Kasich would be different, but it's debateable whether that is more or less of a "win" for Republicans.    

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

There is always backlash. Sometimes it is worth it though and you don't really know for 10 to 20 years if it was worth the price. In the case of the ACA it seems to have been worth it as most of the law is still standing and it has grown more popular with time.  And you can defuse backlash some by making popular policy decisions. (Hard to say exactly how much backlash there was to the ACA due to racial animus and gerrymandering, etc. playing a part)

There is also a danger in tinkering around the edges and letting decades slide by with no progress. Look at the state of climate change and the wholly inadequate response.

I'd agree the ACA was worth it because it was an improvement to the the health care system and seemingly helped to turn the corner on the public's receptiveness to universal healthcare. The back lash seemed to be relatively short. It certainly wasn't enough to dislodge Obama from office.  One of the things the ACA had going for it was that it was relatively well thought out. It was just a matter of guessing or wishful thinking.

But saying there is always a backlash isn't a reason to do whatever crazy cockamamie scheme that one likes. Its like AOC running around saying were going to finance healthcare and the Green New Deal with MMT. Sorry that is likely not going to work and will likely create inflation, making the Democrats and the left look like idiots. As much as I support, health care reform and policies to combat climate change, at the end of the day those things will have be financed with taxes or borrowing. And I say this as somebody who is sympathetic to functional finance.

Also, if you think the backlash is likely to be long, then you might re-consider the policy in question. I'm mean what in the hell is the point if the policy causes you to lose elections, gets  reversed, and causes you to lose power for a long time, so you can't do anything else.

Of course I'm not saying don't do anything because there will be a backlash. As you say, there will always be backlash. So, I think more thought needs to go into it, than just observing that there will be a backlash.

[HoodedCrow]

Having had exposure to different health care systems, I would say the German model is the best one for the United States. It has a government sponsored basic health care and then private companies have to compete with bangs and whistles to get you to pay more. Because they compete with each other, in fact, the prices stay down. Imagine women dumping their health care because birth control is an option? No?

[Zorral]

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The Democrats would likely find themselves out of power, perhaps for a long time

Hello.  The Dems aren't in power and haven't been for a long time, not even with Obama in the White House for two terms. If they'd been in power they'd never have been denied the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge.  Nothing says NO POWER like that did.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Hello.  The Dems aren't in power and haven't been for a long time, not even with Obama in the White House for two terms. If they'd been in power they'd never have been denied the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge.  Nothing says NO POWER like that did.

So the argument here is since the Democrats aren't in power, lets do stuff that will make sure they remain out of power. How does this make sense? It makes about much sense as saying, "I thought I better join the Army before I got drafted."

[Zorral]

That's your argument, which I don't agree is correct.  People aren't coming out to vote for no change, which is your argument -- don't change anything. Argument for incremental are always for no change, just like the argument to deal with slavery (which even Abe Lincoln wistfully wanted to believe in) was deportation -- someday, somewhere, anywhere, but not here.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime Biden's been campaigning with music of Willie Nelson and his son.  I like the look too, when he's meeting with real people -- they are all socially distanced, wearing masks, and he is VERY socially distanced, but considerately solitary, no one even standing feet behind him.  He's not wearing a mask -- at that time -- but he's far enough away to be considerately safe for others.  To me it looks 'active' and smart, in the right ways.  Certainly beats being shown playing golf.  Photo here:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/joe-biden-2020-swing-states-texas.html

Quote

Late in the afternoon on the last Monday in June, 430 Democrats, who had paid up to $100,000 each, clicked into a private, Texas-themed Zoom call organized by Joe Biden’s campaign. They were greeted by former Planned Parenthood chief Cecile Richards, whose mother, Ann, was the state’s last Democratic governor. They heard from Julián Castro and Beto O’Rourke, and they were treated to a performance by Willie Nelson, who sang a song with his son Lukas called “Vote ’Em Out.” It began, “If you don’t like who’s in there, vote ’em out. / That’s what Election Day is all about. / The biggest gun we’ve got is called the ballot box.” And they heard from Biden, who — just four days after a Fox News poll showed him narrowly ahead of Donald Trump in the state no Democratic nominee has carried since Jimmy Carter — told them, “I think we can turn Texas blue.” [....]

Time to start with the questions short enough for t-shirts: why does $ hate America?  why does $ hate US troops? etc.

FYI, read twice already today the jerk and mafia in the WH and supporters as the death cult, by the professional chattering class (though granted, I don't seldom agree with those complacent sorts -- but they are clearly scared now, and it's the virus that is what has finally really scared them, because they are in that age range and probably have other conditions too).

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

That's your argument, which I don't agree is correct.  People aren't coming out to vote for no change, which is your argument -- don't change anything. Argument for incremental are always for no change, just like the argument to deal with slavery (which even Abe Lincoln wistfully wanted to believe in) was deportation -- someday, somewhere, anywhere, but not here.

Well actually, its not my exact argument. I laid out some criteria about thinking about theses issues, rather than just taking a side on the incremental versus radical approach. But, certainly, I did argue that the long term political effects need to be taken into account.

[Jaxom 1974]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure if Kal would agree, but I think that Trump has accomplished less for Republicans than a hypothetical Kasich or Rubio administration.  If Kasich had won the nomination, he almost assuredly beats Clinton, probably more easily than Trump did, because Clinton just isn't popular.  He still gets 2 SC justices, still passes a tax cut.  Probably gets an infrastructure bill passed in the first two years, and thus the stock market/economy is even better in 2018.  Democrats probably fail to flip the House or make as significant gains in the governorships.  Then there's all of 2019 to get even more Republican priorities passed, whatever that might be.  Then in the face of the pandemic, Kasich is definitely going to do a better job, masks would be worn nationally and likely we're looking at 30-50% less cases/deaths right now.  He'd still be in for a tough reelection fight, but he wouldn't be down 10 points.  

The big differences are the tax cut is probably a shade less regressive, which helps the working class Republicans but doesn't help the plutocrats.  The immigration policies are less punitive, which the plutocrats don't care about but the working class Republicans do.  There is more competence in the administration, fewer self inflicted wounds like "good people on both sides", the Roy Moore embarrassment, gassing peaceful protesters and the maskless Tulsa debacle.  

The primary difference, and I agree with what you're saying whole heartedly, is a Trump presidency let all of the hatred, bigotry, and misogyny come out in the forefront.  I've been mystified that the Republican Party allowed that to happen.  With Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, get you all of the above while allowing the other stuff to continue to fly quietly below the surface, allowing them the chance to strengthen their power structure...

Also, try to tell that to an ardent Trumpy person, and that their Trump support is signaling their own Inherent racism and they don't like that...

[HoodedCrow]

No, incremental change is not, by definition, “no change”.

I’m a progressive and probably believe in similar directions to you. I do think the U.S. has a lot more groundwork to do. It’s hard to walk back all the brainwashing from media, etc. sanders was right to try, and if he had been successful I’d happily have voted for him. That Sanders is not successful is a gauge of how the ideas are being received by Americans. Yes, young people are getting a chance to shape this now and for a long time! However, Trumps presidency is a catastrophe, and I feel that fact is what I will respond to and fight over the speed after achieving a power position.

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

No, incremental change is not, by definition, “no change”.

Where do you think the bromide. "one step forward two steps back." comes from? Ultimately it puts you even further back than at the beginning.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 hours ago, Triskele said:

GOP Senators mull when to break with Trump.  

If the Republicans wait for Labor Day to drop Trump... they're screwed.  They will not be able to turn things around in the time they have left.

[Jace, Extat]

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Where do you think the bromide. "one step forward two steps back." comes from? Ultimately it puts you even further back than at the beginning.

You say the wackest shit.

[Ormond]

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Where do you think the bromide. "one step forward two steps back." comes from? Ultimately it puts you even further back than at the beginning.

Which is no more a "bromide" than "two steps forward one step back."

Google at the moment gives 352,000 hits for "one step forward two steps back" and 363,000 results for "two steps forward one step back." I guess the optimists are just slightly ahead of the pessimists there.
 

[HoodedCrow]

Zorral, this response. is sophistry. We could have a bromide war, but it would be silly. 
 

No, I don’t mean dropping the ball, when the rubber hits the road:)!

[BigFatCoward]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

Which is no more a "bromide" than "two steps forward one step back."

Google at the moment gives 352,000 hits for "one step forward two steps back" and 363,000 results for "two steps forward one step back." I guess the optimists are just slightly ahead of the pessimists there.
 

Has anyone said it as well as Paula Abdul? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I put one foot in and turn myself about.

I out one foot in my mouth and show myself out 

[GrimTuesday]

7 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

No, incremental change is not, by definition, “no change”.

I’m a progressive and probably believe in similar directions to you. I do think the U.S. has a lot more groundwork to do. It’s hard to walk back all the brainwashing from media, etc. sanders was right to try, and if he had been successful I’d happily have voted for him. That Sanders is not successful is a gauge of how the ideas are being received by Americans. Yes, young people are getting a chance to shape this now and for a long time! However, Trumps presidency is a catastrophe, and I feel that fact is what I will respond to and fight over the speed after achieving a power position.

I think that the idea that Sanders lost on policy grounds is incorrect. Based off polling, Democrats are broadly supportive of the policies that Sanders was running on, but I think that what really decided things was this is a time when Americans are scared, and their instinct was go run to daddy to be comforted and feel safe. I think this is a self destructive instinct that is impeding progress, but I can't really blame them for that.

[HoodedCrow]

Sanders did not win:( 
 

Would I chooseBiden? He’s is smart, knows how to author legislation, knows the other people;  he is compassionate and plays well with others. It could be much, much worse, like a presidency by alpha orange male Trump leading an irresponsible senate.