US Politics: The Roll Call Heard Across America

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I am very interested to see if there's any bounce, if only as a researcher.  With the stability in Trump's approval/disapproval, I was skeptical there'd be much of any for either party this cycle even before covid. 

I hope that Biden gets a bounce, but I don't really expect it.  If the polls in mid-September (post-conventions) are more or less where they were mid-august (Biden +8), that'd be win enough for me.  Trump is running out of runway, and the only real set-piece left after this is the debates.  And while Biden is a mediocre debater, the Trump camp's "Biden the senile puppet"  strategy will help with debate expectations even more than at the convention. 

Not to mention that Trump is a poor debater himself, and relies on a couple of tired tricks to "dominate" the debate, which I've no doubt Biden will be prepared for. 

[Liffguard]

Creating a public healthcare system in one fell swoop isn't necessarily impossible. The NHS was created more-or-less overnight, and keep in mind that was fully nationalised healthcare, not just nationalised insurance. And it was created whilst the UK was still reeling from WWII and undergoing rationing, so it can still be done amidst difficult circumstances.

That said, whilst the institution of the NHS wasn't built up slowly over time, there was certainly a huge amount of political foundation-laying that had been going on in the background for many years prior to it's actual creation.

Which is why I think it's important for the left-wing of the Democratic party to keep pushing for single-payer, both in the public eye and behind the scenes. Because even if they don't get it now, getting it in the future depends on continually building the public case for it, building public demand and public pressure.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Not to mention that Trump is a poor debater himself, and relies on a couple of tired tricks to "dominate" the debate, which I've no doubt Biden will be prepared for. 

I think one strength for Biden in the debates is Trump's tactic of interrupting and undercutting his opponent is not going to work nearly as well as it did on Hillary.  A lot of that has to do with gender, of course, but also Biden is just a fucking unstoppable force when it comes to rambling.  I can't find it now (because now when you google any iteration of "Biden Senate hearing" you get a whole lot more bullshit), but there was this hilarious clip about 15 years ago where as Senator he was questioning a witness at a hearing - and his time literally ran out before he asked a single question because he was just rambling for, like, 8 minutes.

[Zorral]

Prediction: the optics of the rethuggery con will be in tandem and in sequence over and over, Mt. Rushmore, West Point, howling mobs in red caps, lots and lots and LOTS of guns as they scream Harris, like Obama, is taking them away.  And fires with lots of dark skin foregrounded.

Interesting, last night we heard 'nazi' spoken.  It was Biden who said the word, in his speech.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

The NHS was created more-or-less overnight, and keep in mind that was fully nationalised healthcare, not just nationalised insurance. And it was created whilst the UK was still reeling from WWII and undergoing rationing, so it can still be done amidst difficult circumstances.

Well, basically every government in the world instituted broad and dramatic change after WWII.  Perhaps the aftermath of all this will be a moment like that, but that remains to be seen.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, basically every government in the world instituted broad and dramatic change after WWII.  Perhaps the aftermath of all this will be a moment like that, but that remains to be seen.

Also not sure the Blitz-era British are a good comparison for the nation of spoiled, willfully ignorant toddlers that the US has largely become.

[DMC]

Politico has a decent write-up of what Biden's potential Cabinet will look like.  Pretty much all the names dropped are fairly obvious, and many have been discussed here, but I like the idea of Karen Bass as HHS Secretary.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, Trump has called the Democratic convention as the “darkest, angriest” in history.

He must have been watching some other convention, not the one I was watching.

Maybe his ears only pricked up when his name was mentioned, and he missed all the warm, moving stuff that brought tears to my eyes. Maybe Beau Biden’s name was the Name That Shouldn’t Have Been Spoken.

Maybe he’ll do a moving tribute to his late brother, explaining how he inspired him. 
 

Maybe not.

[GrimTuesday]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Politico has a decent write-up of what Biden's potential Cabinet will look like.  Pretty much all the names dropped are fairly obvious, and many have been discussed here, but I like the idea of Karen Bass as HHS Secretary.

I hope whatever lists are being compiled by Third Way are going to be used as a list of people not to put into the administration.

[Martell Spy]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Politico has a decent write-up of what Biden's potential Cabinet will look like.  Pretty much all the names dropped are fairly obvious, and many have been discussed here, but I like the idea of Karen Bass as HHS Secretary.

Interesting quote in that story.

Quote

 

Last month, Biden signaled an openness to ending the 60-vote filibuster rule, a practice President Barack Obama recently called a “Jim Crow relic.”

“The filibuster is gone,” said Harry Reid, the influential former Senate majority leader and a friend of Biden. “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when it’s going to go … Next year at this time, it will be gone.”

When asked what changed Biden’s thinking about the filibuster, Reid said, “I don’t know. I talked to him and Ricchetti about it. Maybe that helped a little bit. I think, just basically, pragmatism — if he’s going to get anything done as president, [the filibuster] has got to go.”

 

 

[Zorral]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Politico has a decent write-up of what Biden's potential Cabinet will look like.  Pretty much all the names dropped are fairly obvious, and many have been discussed here, but I like the idea of Karen Bass as HHS Secretary.

I'm really glad they are pulling all this together now, understanding there isn't a moment to lose between now and the inauguration, nor after the inauguration.  "Work" was a key word of the convention.  These people know how to do that.  More to the point, they want to work, the want to fix things, at least as far as they will be able to do.

That was a huge mistake from the gitgo of the Obama administration.  They weren't ready with lists of appointments and strategies.  After the inauguration too, it felt often as though the Obamas were doing a honeymooning getting to try out and savor what it meant to be elected to the White House.  They spent a lot of time those first three month in NYC, at the theater, restaurants and so on, celebrating.  Whether that was all that was going on, I don't know, but it didn't look or feel like much.  Not that I'd ever accuse either of the Obamas of being irresponsible or lazy.  They just weren't prepared for the reality, they hadn't conceptualized what it meant, and they were also giddy that it happened.  Or so it felt to me at the time.  Not saying this was what was the real thing.

Hillary's campaign felt as though all she cared about was getting in there, because she never mentioned the who was coming with her to do what she wanted to do.

But it does feel now, at the moment, that there's a decently deep bench of decent and smart Dems who get it, ready and willing and able to dig in immediately.

Nor will there be balls and the other hoopla of inauguration either, so that helps.  People are also authentically feeling their grave responsibilities.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 hours ago, ants said:

Funny how often you write things which are incorrect that reflect badly on Biden.  (Biden has been supporting public option for much more than a few months, he isn't arguing for tweaking obamacare, and saying that he's selling out progressive goals on healthcare is ridiculous.  The public option will be the most progressive healthcare plan put up by any candidate in decades).  

M4A is a poison pill which would probably hand Trump the election.  You want single payer, you should push for a public option.  Anything else will be DOA.  

I'm not really sure where I've ever written anything incorrect about Biden--I have legitimate concerns about him that you don't agree with, but that doesn't make me incorrect. I could have written my initial post more clearly, but I was on my phone and threw out a comment. His message has always been that if he were President, M4A was DOA no matter what. That's my point. It leads me to believe he doesn't really care about a public option. He is more interested in preserving private insurance. The problem with the public option is that given the scope and power of our private insurance companies, there's a lot at stake here. I find it strange that people think the public option is the least risky path. There are a lot of reasons this may not be true.

But the heart of it is that private insurance profits are around 35 billion last year. That won't continue with a public option. For example, 22 percent of my overall pay is lost to insurance premiums every month. My copays are decent and affordable--if I'm healthy and don't use them much. But often, when I need to go to the doctor, I often have to make a financial decision (as opposed to one based on my health). Because I err on the side of not going to the doctor because, like so many Americans, I live paycheck to paycheck, this is a big win for the insurance companies. They take 22 percent of my pay and I don't use their service. So someone like me would really benefit from the public option, and if I were eligible, I'd take it. But now we run into a problem for our billionaire rulers: if there is a mass exodus of people dropping private for public insurance, the insurance companies will do everything they can to stop this. What they need is not to people like me from their plans, what they need is for us to continue to pay our premiums and not use insurance.

I believe you aren't in the US, correct? The reality here is that when these big, multi-billion dollar companies start hemorrhaging money, they become truly destructive. Look at how long Big Tobacco litigated and tied things up in court so they could keep lying and pedaling cigarettes to an ignorant public. This has happened before, and those were times when the Supreme Court hadn't been so kind of corporations.

All of this to say, Biden knows this. He's been around too long not to know this. He isn't that interested in the outcome of a public option IN MY OPINION, and more to the point I was making that you so neatly diverted: we are witnessing in real time the terrible, broken nature of our healthcare system, and the single payer conversation should be front and center. People need help.  

ETA: I hope I am wrong. I truly, truly hope I am wrong. That Biden gets elected, implements this method, and many of us experience new wealth by not having to pay ridiculous premiums and can afford to be proactive about our health.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, S John said:

@Simon Steele I don’t agree that only high risk people would gravitate to the public option. One of the most widely accepted bullshit things about the USA is that our health insurance is tied to employment. If a public option helps to sever that link, I actually think you’d see a lot of people - young people, creative people, entrepreneurs, etc go for the government option. I really think our current insurance system stifles innovation and risk-taking. Often wonder how many good small business ideas never get off the ground because the person with the idea needs their employer based healthcare.

I want this to be true. If people could go to the public option and do better, and people who want to keep private insurance can keep it, and it all works out, that'd be great. But the public option poses such a potential dangerous to insurance company profits that I'm just too cynical to believe it would happen this way.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Trump has called the Democratic convention as the “darkest, angriest” in history.

He must have been watching some other convention, not the one I was watching.

Maybe his ears only pricked up when his name was mentioned, and he missed all the warm, moving stuff that brought tears to my eyes. Maybe Beau Biden’s name was the Name That Shouldn’t Have Been Spoken.

We do have to allow for the possibility that Trump sees warm, moving stuff as being dark and angry. It would be pretty on brand.

[Guy Kilmore]

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I'm really glad they are pulling all this together now, understanding there isn't a moment to lose between now and the inauguration, nor after the inauguration.  "Work" was a key word of the convention.  These people know how to do that.  More to the point, they want to work, the want to fix things, at least as far as they will be able to do.

That was a huge mistake from the gitgo of the Obama administration.  They weren't ready with lists of appointments and strategies.  After the inauguration too, it felt often as though the Obamas were doing a honeymooning getting to try out and savor what it meant to be elected to the White House.  They spent a lot of time those first three month in NYC, at the theater, restaurants and so on, celebrating.  Whether that was all that was going on, I don't know, but it didn't look or feel like much.  Not that I'd ever accuse either of the Obamas of being irresponsible or lazy.  They just weren't prepared for the reality, they hadn't conceptualized what it meant, and they were also giddy that it happened.  Or so it felt to me at the time.  Not saying this was what was the real thing.

Hillary's campaign felt as though all she cared about was getting in there, because she never mentioned the who was coming with her to do what she wanted to do.

But it does feel now, at the moment, that there's a decently deep bench of decent and smart Dems who get it, ready and willing and able to dig in immediately.

Nor will there be balls and the other hoopla of inauguration either, so that helps.  People are also authentically feeling their grave responsibilities.

Those are some good names on that list.  I kind of want Warren to stay in the Senate, I think those Senate numbers are TOOO important to mess with.

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That was a huge mistake from the gitgo of the Obama administration.  They weren't ready with lists of appointments and strategies.  After the inauguration too, it felt often as though the Obamas were doing a honeymooning getting to try out and savor what it meant to be elected to the White House.  They spent a lot of time those first three month in NYC, at the theater, restaurants and so on, celebrating.  Whether that was all that was going on, I don't know, but it didn't look or feel like much.  Not that I'd ever accuse either of the Obamas of being irresponsible or lazy.  They just weren't prepared for the reality, they hadn't conceptualized what it meant, and they were also giddy that it happened.  Or so it felt to me at the time.  Not saying this was what was the real thing.

Literally nothing said in this paragraph is true.  The Obama transition got right to work - Emanuel was announced as CoS about 30 hours after the election was called.  His entire senior staff was announced by Thanksgiving, and almost all of his Cabinet was very promptly nominated.  The only hiccups there were Richardson at Commerce and Daschle at HHS - and both controversies would be hand-waived under the current climate.  The only real scandal of the Obama transition was Blago trying to sell his seat.

As for once taking office, he passed the stimulus within a month of inauguration and made significant progress in Congress on the ACA until the summer recess where members went home and had to answer questions at town halls about "death panels."  Obama's transition and first year were highly successful compared to most recent presidents - the only one that exceeds him is Dubya in terms of legislative accomplishments (of course, there was also 9/11, but he got his tax cuts signed into law and No Child Left Behind awaiting conference before that - which is quite impressive).  To be fair, Dubya should also be credited with making a concerted effort to provide a smooth transition for Obama. 

5 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I kind of want Warren to stay in the Senate, I think those Senate numbers are TOOO important to mess with.

Well, by the time he has to make a decision on it, they'll know whether or not Warren's seat is essential to maintaining the majority.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, by the time he has to make a decision on it, they'll know whether or not Warren's seat is essential to maintaining the majority.

Fair point.

You'd probably know this, how often does someone after they take a cabinet position, when it comes to a close, go back into an elected position?

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I hope that Biden gets a bounce, but I don't really expect it.  If the polls in mid-September (post-conventions) are more or less where they were mid-august (Biden +8), that'd be win enough for me.  Trump is running out of runway, and the only real set-piece left after this is the debates.  And while Biden is a mediocre debater, the Trump camp's "Biden the senile puppet"  strategy will help with debate expectations even more than at the convention. 

And do the debates even matter? Back in 2016, HRC was judged to have won all three, for all the good THAT did her.

[Maithanet]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

And do the debates even matter? Back in 2016, HRC was judged to have won all three, for all the good THAT did her.

They don't matter much, in general.  Most undecided voters don't watch the debates anyway.  However, this race has been very static all year, and that is the last real "set piece" that might shake things up.  I don't expect it to, but I suppose anything is possible. 

EDIT:  On the 2016 debates, without a doubt if you watched the whole debate, Clinton trounced Trump.  But if you only caught a few 15 second clips on facebook or something, Trump got in a few shots that landed, it might give a different impression. 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

You'd probably know this, how often does someone after they take a cabinet position, when it comes to a close, go back into an elected position?

This really depends on the age of the appointee.  If they're younger, like say Andrew Cuomo or Julian Castro who both served as HUD secretaries, the position is often used as a jumping off point to elected office.  For the big four though (State, Defense, Treasury, AG), that position is usually one of if not the last jobs in public service for the officeholder.  Sessions would have been a pretty big outlier in that regard, but he got beat by a football coach.

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

And do the debates even matter? Back in 2016, HRC was judged to have won all three, for all the good THAT did her.

The only way they matter is if you fuck up royally.  For the most part though, while there are often VERY short-term shifts immediately following debates, research has consistently found a null effect of the debates on voting behavior - let alone enough change in voting behavior to affect the outcome.