US Politics: Hey Joe, where are you going with that vote in your hand

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Agree, per the exit polls, Trump-adjacent/once-removed does not have the same toxicity that the full-Trump brand does.

Yeah turns out McAuliffe, Biden, and Trump were all unpopular with Virginians - and similarly so.  The only one that wasn't unpopular - Youngkin - was the only one not talking about Trump.

[sologdin]

Are the facts as stated in the article wrong? 

yeah, the whole article sucks. its argument is contingent upon the tendency of the amount of federal spending per pupil in constant dollars to increase as time goes on.  great. good job.  less than 10%, however, of the funding for public schools in the US is federal, so the value of the article's conclusions is limited only to the federal share.

states reduce their education budgets; localities change their tax rates; student populations change; even actual increases in funding can fail to meet the CPI. 

[JGP]

44 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

What has happened in the first 9 month's of Biden's presidency that any Democrat can point to and say "here, this is why you should vote for us!"  Being Not Trump doesn't count, that's a reason not to vote for someone else. 

Perfect has somehow become the true enemy of Good, it seems. 

 

 

We have the same issue in Canada.  

 

[Corvinus85]

43 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump is not a big presence in the lives of most Americans these days.  He's not completely gone, but if you aren't a political junkie it is easy to go days or even weeks without thinking about him at all. 

I don't know about that. His base proudly displays Trump 2024 banners anywhere they are, so all other people are reminded as they travel around their towns.

[IheartIheartTesla]

So the House will probably pass both bills this week. What happens then, is Manchin going to sink it because of the paid family leave provision?

[DMC]

Thought this was interesting, if from the dastardly politico.  They interviewed Youngkin's top strategists and asked them how they would have advised McAuliffe:

Quote

“I would have hit us on education first a lot harder than they did. That's actually what I was afraid of for most of the time, annoying everyone about it. But TERRY [MCAULIFFE] focused so much on [DONALD] TRUMP and made his campaign so much about Trump, then abortion, and then I think climate change was in there for a minute. It's like they literally took the Rolodex of all the base issues and tried to hit us as being extreme on them. … And what they should have done instead was go towards the typical: Democrats are very good at painting Republicans as being bad on education, saying we’re going to fire teachers and cut pay. Having been governor before, he had a record there. He should have hit us first and disqualified the issue.”

We’ll have much about this in the magazine and podcast, but there are two key points here: 1) Youngkin’s advisers were preparing to lean into a Democratic issue since January and their big fear was that Democrats would retain their traditional advantage on that issue. 2) The race was about education, as many gubernatorial races often are, not CRT, which was only important to a small subset of voters.

 

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So the House will probably pass both bills this week. What happens then, is Manchin going to sink it because of the paid family leave provision?

Let's just see if they actually hold a vote first.  Pelosi has been saying they are very close to a vote for a good percentage of the last 40 days or so.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Clyburn said they were still sorting our the whip count for BBB, but it wasn't his anticipation they would be staying over the weekend

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Clyburn said they were still sorting our the whip count for BBB, but it wasn't his anticipation they would be staying over the weekend

I'm aware, but a number of moderates are insisting on a CBO score first.  We'll see, I'm frankly just tired of reading "Pelosi aims for vote soon."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Were they?  I mean, I was, American Gov/Civics were required back in the olden times, but I went to a good public school, and long enough ago that the many, many education fads of the last 20 years had not yet emerged to destroy the system with good intentions.  It seems impossible that anyone would have been taught something so basic as executive/legislative/judicial and can't remember it as an adult.  I could I guess see maybe people forgetting how long a Senate term is, or being VERY generous, forget how many supremes there are, but if you don't know something that basic then indeed, you are ignorant and a danger to society itself.

Yes, I took HS Civics in 2006, and it was still taught long after I graduated from college. The obvious mistake you're making here is you're assuming young adults are bring the numbers down and that's because of changes in the curriculum. That's not the case as the results are from all adults and we see similar ones from surveys taken before I was in JH, so blaming it on modern changes in education is simply wrong.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

What has happened in the first 9 month's of Biden's presidency that any Democrat can point to and say "here, this is why you should vote for us!"  Being Not Trump doesn't count, that's a reason not to vote for someone else. 

I get that Biden got handed a shit sandwich in Afghanistan, COVID continues to be a huge challenge, and progressives/moderates have hugely different ideas of what being a Democrat means.  But this is a results based business.  Biden was handed a shitty hand and thus far he is playing it poorly.  He needs to do better. 

I agree, but honestly what more could Biden do that would have significantly changed things? If you're looking for someone in leadership to blame, the obvious target should be Schumer.

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It's also worth considering that a not-insignificant number of Biden voters voted for GOP congressional candidates downballot.  This fantasy that Congress passing (or already having passed) a couple bills would save Dems in the midterms is completely unfounded in recent history.  As always, they are subject to overarching environmental conditions - anxiety over the economy, covid, and the perpetual fickle seesaw that is the American electorate.  It took 9/11 and warmongering for Dubya to be the only president in the past forty years to not lose the House by at least 7 percent in his first midterm.

I think you're right, but I have one issue with the bolded part. I'm not sure passing the bills would have made a huge positive impact as the benefits of them would not have been felt in time, but I do think the perception of infighting has hurt them. Whenever you see regular folks being interviewed they commonly bring this up and cite it as why it's hard to back Dems for those in the middle.

Quote

For at least the past twenty years people have been trying to identify the next post-Reagan "realignment."  Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that this perpetual fickle seesaw is the realignment.  And in that vein, it is a positive development that Biden's Democratic party is rejecting the triangulation attempts to coopt Reaganism and return the party to the firmly liberal/social democratic ideals of the FDR-coalition.

Interesting take.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure passing the bills would have made a huge positive impact as the benefits of them would not have been felt in time, but I do think the perception of infighting has hurt them. Whenever you see regular folks being interviewed they commonly bring this up and cite it as why it's hard to back Dems for those in the middle.

Just because voters cite infighting or gridlock in Congress as the reason for their dissatisfaction doesn't mean they wouldn't be dissatisfied anyway.  My point is the only way to improve Biden's approval and in turn Democratic prospects in the midterms is to improve the public's anxiety on the economy and covid - or at least the public's perception of Biden/Dems' handling of these issues.  Could passing these bills help that?  Sure, and of course passing something is better than not passing something (as long as it's not unpopular, which they aren't).  But if they pass the bills and Biden's numbers still don't improve on the economy/covid - which is entirely possible - it's not going to matter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Weirdly, having a president that wanted to work for the general welfare did better for the bottom half of the population by income than a corrupt mediocrity who doesnt give a fuck as long as he gets his 10% and was installed by shadow powers that be.

What?  Care to elaborate in your claim that Biden was installed by “shadow powers that be”?  Would that be the electoral college?

[DMC]

There seemed to be some confusion on what I meant by "enthusiasm" and "turnout" the other night.  Just came across this tweet that hopefully provides some clarification:

 

[Week]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  Care to elaborate in your claim that Biden was installed by “shadow powers that be”?  Would that be the electoral college?

"Corrupt mediocrity who doesn't give a fuck as long as he gets his 10%" is the last administration too. What evidence exists of the intent of any policy or action of the last administration to benefit general welfare? 

Maybe it was a long con of abusing migrant families at the border so that the next administration is (potentially) forced to make settlement payments?

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Something worth considering, while some Democrats including Biden ran on sweeping new legislation, many people ultimately voted for them because they wanted a return to normal and functioning government , and these same people have for months watched Democrats be completely dysfunctional. It’s still too early to tell, but they may have misread the political landscape.

Alternately, the political landscape makes it impossible for any actual political function. Democrats sold a bill of good that they could not under any circumstances deliver.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There seemed to be some confusion on what I meant by "enthusiasm" and "turnout" the other night.  Just came across this tweet that hopefully provides some clarification:

 

I'm not sure that implies what you think it does. One interpretation is that McAuliffe was an okay candidate and Youngkin was great; the other is that Trumpiness gives a significant boost to Republicans even when he's not running due to voter enthusiasm.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalsandra said:

I'm not sure that implies what you think it does. One interpretation is that McAuliffe was an okay candidate and Youngkin was great; the other is that Trumpiness gives a significant boost to Republicans even when he's not running due to voter enthusiasm.

My only interpretation is McAuliffe failed to turnout his reelection constituency while Youngkin did.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

My only interpretation is McAuliffe failed to turnout his reelection constituency while Youngkin did.

I...guess? But given that McAuliffe's turnout was basically normal (actually slightly higher) I don't know how much of a failure it is on him precisely. 

My personal take is that anti-Trump turnout only works when Trump is actually on the ballot, but pro-Trump turnout is going to work well even when he's not on the ballot. And McAuliffe did something really fatal - he made it more likely that pro-Trump folks voted for Youngkin by his attempting to pin  Trump on him. 

And there really wasn't enough pro-McAuliffe to go around, because, well, dems across the board are sucking. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I agree, but honestly what more could Biden do that would have significantly changed things?

Well, it was rumored that LBJ could give them the treatment and change votes of reluctant Senators.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, it was rumored that LBJ could give them the treatment and change votes of reluctant Senators.

In all honesty? A whole lot more progressive things:

- XOs for education relief

- XOs for immigration changing, especially rescinding Remain in Mexico less incompetently and the Title 42 bullshit with Covid

- XOs for Haitian relief and avoiding that bullshit

- Significantly better dealing with Afghanistan, ignoring military that said that things were fine when things were clearly Not Fine

- Handle the bullshit of bipartisan deal/BBB deal better in a lot of ways

- Handle the Covid rollout WAY better - mandates earlier, understanding delta impact significantly earlier and responding faster

- removal of tariffs with Europe

- driving the rent relief stuff better

 

None of the above save the bullshit BIF/BBB garbage has anything to do with congress. Biden didn't do these things.