I'm making fun of them on a message board. My God, this will destroy the whole strategy.
You know, I appreciate the point, but this attitude in general from Democrats erks me to no end - and it's not like it doesn't show up repeatedly in national polls or influence decision makers.
"All hope is lost" and alternatively "we can never lose again" are attitudes that pop up here with the most retarded regularity.
Just four months ago I think I was in an argument about the chance that the Democrats could lose the midterm elections and I was assured repeatedly that demographics - demographics! - made it impossible. And Thanatos was the only one who agreed with me.
Holy Jesus.
Long term demographics do point to a slight structural benefit for the Democrats. Not by the midterms, mind, but within 30-40 years. Similar to how the government has been setup since the start had a slight structural benefit for conservatives thanks to over representation of rural areas (and Rhode Island) at the expense of population.
IIRC it wasn't slight. Self-identified Republicans in the younger demographics were 7% I believe it was.
Look. This is the country tha re-elected George Bush. It's going to be that country for a long time. After that, it will probably be something else that depends on whatever the next big formative event is.
Young people skewed pretty fucking liberal in the 60s. Now all these baby boomers suck. We will in turn probably suck in four decades.
Boomers suck because they're entitled fuckwits. They still vote liberal.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm making fun of them on a message board. My God, this will destroy the whole strategy.
You know, I appreciate the point, but this attitude in general from Democrats erks me to no end - and it's not like it doesn't show up repeatedly in national polls or influence decision makers.
"All hope is lost" and alternatively "we can never lose again" are attitudes that pop up here with the most retarded regularity.
Just four months ago I think I was in an argument about the chance that the Democrats could lose the midterm elections and I was assured repeatedly that demographics - demographics! - made it impossible. And Thanatos was the only one who agreed with me.
Holy Jesus.
Long term demographics do point to a slight structural benefit for the Democrats. Not by the midterms, mind, but within 30-40 years. Similar to how the government has been setup since the start had a slight structural benefit for conservatives thanks to over representation of rural areas (and Rhode Island) at the expense of population.
IIRC it wasn't slight. Self-identified Republicans in the younger demographics were 7% I believe it was.
Age is less significant a long term political party signifier than ethnicity, religion, and class since...well, you're only 19 once. Non-hispanic whites are becoming less significant a share of the overall vote total over time. This is beneficial for Dem's. Particularly since you're never going to get the press to stop obsessing over what well to do middle aged white guys think.
I'm making fun of them on a message board. My God, this will destroy the whole strategy.
You know, I appreciate the point, but this attitude in general from Democrats erks me to no end - and it's not like it doesn't show up repeatedly in national polls or influence decision makers.
"All hope is lost" and alternatively "we can never lose again" are attitudes that pop up here with the most retarded regularity.
Just four months ago I think I was in an argument about the chance that the Democrats could lose the midterm elections and I was assured repeatedly that demographics - demographics! - made it impossible. And Thanatos was the only one who agreed with me.
Holy Jesus.
Long term demographics do point to a slight structural benefit for the Democrats. Not by the midterms, mind, but within 30-40 years. Similar to how the government has been setup since the start had a slight structural benefit for conservatives thanks to over representation of rural areas (and Rhode Island) at the expense of population.
IIRC it wasn't slight. Self-identified Republicans in the younger demographics were 7% I believe it was.
Look. This is the country tha re-elected George Bush. It's going to be that country for a long time. After that, it will probably be something else that depends on whatever the next big formative event is.
Young people skewed pretty fucking liberal in the 60s. Now all these baby boomers suck. We will in turn probably suck in four decades.
When I said young I meant 18-29 or thereabouts. The baby boomers weren't that old yet in the 60s. IMO the long-term demographic trend is leftwards, and I mean 20-40 years long term.
And it explains 75% of the difference in faith in government. So the other 25% is other stuff. Ethics, being portrayed as an arrogant, lying dipshit by a biased media, crappy campaign staff, etc.
PR gimmicks?
None of those things are process bullshit. No one cares about process bullshit.
The American Revolution was fought over process bullshit.
That's collapsing quite a bit of history.
So is the above 75% / 25% characterization of what happens in elections.
Long term demographics do point to a slight structural benefit for the Democrats. Not by the midterms, mind, but within 30-40 years.
Ah, we are talking of the Keynesian long term then.
You're the one that brought it up. Majorities lose seats in the mid-terms, but typically don't lose chambers unless circumstances are such that an anti-incumbency wave hits. Circumstances which are largely shaped by implementing good policy rather than not implementing policies or implementing poor ones for pyrrhic reasons.
Frankly I don't get why you mentioned demographics at all since they aren't really involved in health insurance reform outside of Hispanics being disproportionately in favour of it.
I was contrasting irrational pessimism about the capacity of the Democrats to achieve things with irrational optimism about the effect of demographics on upcoming elections and opining that both were ridiculous and unrealistic.
It's not irrationally optimistic nor unrealistic to believe that voting trends will continue along similar lines to what they have been doing for decades.
The public doesn't give a shit about bi-partisanship.
What the what?
The semi-informed public overwhelmingly say in polls they want the parties to continue to work together to pass something. Bi-partisanship is as popular as babies and apple pie. What country do you live in? What polls are you looking at?
Yeah, this is completely incorrect. People don't really care if Republicans get what they want, they just want a good bill.
And it explains 75% of the difference in faith in government. So the other 25% is other stuff. Ethics, being portrayed as an arrogant, lying dipshit by a biased media, crappy campaign staff, etc.
PR gimmicks?
None of those things are process bullshit. No one cares about process bullshit.
The American Revolution was fought over process bullshit.
That's collapsing quite a bit of history.
So is the above 75% / 25% characterization of what happens in elections.
Not really. Most all poli-sci stuff that I've read has pointed to macro-economic being the primary driver of well attended election results. It's the primary reason that that one professor has managed to accurately predict the winner of each Presidential election for the past 20 years or so.
You can also look at the impact that major Recessions have had on incumbent parties throughout developed Democracies thanks to the ruling parties at that particular moment generally be of different political stripes. Rather than vote in the progressive party with whiz bang solutions, they voted for whoever the other guy was. In some instances this led to progressive pickups in others it led to progressive losses. All taking place under the same basic conditions. This isn't unsubstantiated.
And it explains 75% of the difference in faith in government. So the other 25% is other stuff. Ethics, being portrayed as an arrogant, lying dipshit by a biased media, crappy campaign staff, etc.
PR gimmicks?
None of those things are process bullshit. No one cares about process bullshit.
The American Revolution was fought over process bullshit.
That's collapsing quite a bit of history.
So is the above 75% / 25% characterization of what happens in elections.
Look, incumbents' performance correlates extremely well with the state of the economy. This is a well understood phenomenon in political science.
All the other crap? Not meaningful. But that explanation is boring, so we focus on things like campaign strategy or Senate procedure. But people don't care about that. People care if they have a job, some place to live, enough income to pay the bills, and enough to spend two weeks some place sunny or with good ski slopes and buy some cool toys.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Long term demographics do point to a slight structural benefit for the Democrats. Not by the midterms, mind, but within 30-40 years.
Ah, we are talking of the Keynesian long term then.
You're the one that brought it up. Majorities lose seats in the mid-terms, but typically don't lose chambers unless circumstances are such that an anti-incumbency wave hits. Circumstances which are largely shaped by implementing good policy rather than not implementing policies or implementing poor ones for pyrrhic reasons.
Frankly I don't get why you mentioned demographics at all since they aren't really involved in health insurance reform outside of Hispanics being disproportionately in favour of it.
I was contrasting irrational pessimism about the capacity of the Democrats to achieve things with irrational optimism about the effect of demographics on upcoming elections and opining that both were ridiculous and unrealistic.
It's not irrationally optimistic nor unrealistic to believe that voting trends will continue along similar lines to what they have been doing for decades.
I was refering to the demographics argument being employed to predict Democratic dominance in the near term.
Apparently you weren't bothered to read the post that launched this tangent. It's okay.
Please respond with a sage remark about the nature of tangents and their use in forums so we can continue blearily fumbling around off topic.
I was refering to the demographics argument being employed to predict Democratic dominance in the near term.
Apparently you weren't bothered to read the post that launched this tangent. It's okay.
Please respond with a sage remark about the nature of tangents and their use in forums so we can continue blearily fumbling around off topic.
I did. I still don't see what it has to do with anything other than you apparently not liking the arguments of other people in other threads on other topics, but whatever.
And it explains 75% of the difference in faith in government. So the other 25% is other stuff. Ethics, being portrayed as an arrogant, lying dipshit by a biased media, crappy campaign staff, etc.
PR gimmicks?
None of those things are process bullshit. No one cares about process bullshit.
The American Revolution was fought over process bullshit.
That's collapsing quite a bit of history.
So is the above 75% / 25% characterization of what happens in elections.
Look, incumbents' performance correlates extremely well with the state of the economy. This is a well understood phenomenon in political science.
All the other crap? Not meaningful. But that explanation is boring, so we focus on things like campaign strategy or Senate procedure. But people don't care about that. People care if they have a job, some place to live, enough income to pay the bills, and enough to spend two weeks some place sunny or with good ski slopes and buy some cool toys.
All of which is tangential to the healthcare bill and it's passage since it won't miraculously change everything by November of 2012 let alone 2010.
Which begs the question of what in the hell you are trying to employ this argument for.
If anything, the strategy suggested by your well established point would be to drop healthcare like a hot rock and pass jobs bills left and right until November.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Well, it's more an argument for a) not fucking up the stimulus, b) passing health care quickly, so the goodies can be sent out more quickly (and health care is definitely part of "enough income to pay the bills"), c) not structuring the bill to do nothing until 2013 (which the House Dems realized and fixed, as I understand it) and d) passing more jobs bills, yes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
All of which is tangential to the healthcare bill and it's passage since it won't miraculously change everything by November of 2012 let alone 2010.
Which begs the question of what in the hell you are trying to employ this argument for.
If anything, the strategy suggested by your well established point would be to drop healthcare like a hot rock and pass jobs bills left and right until November.
It suggests that it would have been better to pass a $1.2t stimulus rather than a $700b one which had its support to State agencies halved by 'moderate' Senate Dem's who won a pyrrhic victory thanks to things being worse than expected. Oh, and also not reappoint Bernanke who just tightened monetary policy in the face of actual deflation.
Where it comes into play with health insurance reform, it argues for pushing the best policy that is likely to actually help the most people rather than what ameliorates press coverage at the moment. Particularly since large swathes of the legislation does get implemented the day the President puts down his pen. (well, technically 45-90 days after once rules are agreed to in the federal register and abloo) However the likes of Bayh and Baucus don't seem to realize that this is how you are ensured electoral safety in favour of playing the news cycle politics. Plus, even if you do lose your seat at least you lost it doing something meaningful rather than actively hampering shit because that's what the CW of the day suggested doing.
Also, not screwing up the rhetoric stuff since you don't want your failures there to actively harm you.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
Where it comes into play with health insurance reform, it argues for pushing the best policy that is likely to actually help the most people rather than what ameliorates press coverage at the moment. Particularly since large swathes of the legislation does get implemented the day the President puts down his pen.
It barely comes into play in healthcare at all except in obscure and long term ways like wage growth.
The principle is about the economy, and the economy as it is right now. Frankly, I don't care what excuses you make about Al Gore's poor campaign staff. After a boom like the '90s if this principle was so omnipotent the election should never have been close.
Look, it's all well and good to press for the best policy, but you need to press Congressmen for the best policy and they care about other things as well.
So if Congress sees things your way then you've already won and healthcare was enacted in August of '09.
But if Congress doesn't (and they don't seem to) then it makes very little difference. You have to work with what they care about. Is it what they should care about? I doubt Obama cares. He's the only reason this hasn't been pitched overboard already, he's getting the Democrats unified being a single bill, he's created an event that sets a deadline for doing that and could potentially persuade Congresspersons and voters to support a bill passed through reconciliation.
Which is to say, I think he's the best thing going, and what's currently going is the best chance we have so I'm for it.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
Um, didn't you just say your uncle-in-law has incredibly high medical bills that would give him more spending money if they were alleviated?
Assuredly.
Is the American public made up predominantly of the self insured or are you trying to argue that the passage of a healthcare bill which wouldn't actually effect self-insured premiums between now and November would be such a blessing to . . . how many Americans? That it would offset 10% unemployment, the wreckage of the housing market and shattered investment portfolios?
Look, passage is the right thing to do. Passage is good politics as well. Passage will help a lot of people.
Your argument that passage of the healthcare bill tomorrow rather than in march following the summit will be a big difference because of the correlation between the economy and the wellbeing of the incumbent party - no. I don't think so.
Especially since Congress ain't passing the bill tomorrow but might after the summit.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
Yes and had admitted as much pages ago. As well as my own political impotence since I'm to the left of Broder and therefore empower Broder to punch 'hippies' like myself, and because I'm a reliable D vote and can therefore be taken for granted after primaries.
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
That would indeed be great. Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction, though. Hopefully that isn't a harbinger of things to come and they actually manage to improve upon the status quo with passing the Senate bill and tweaks via reconciliation.
Um, didn't you just say your uncle-in-law has incredibly high medical bills that would give him more spending money if they were alleviated?
Assuredly.
Is the American public made up predominantly of the self insured or are you trying to argue that the passage of a healthcare bill which wouldn't actually effect self-insured premiums between now and November would be such a blessing to . . . how many Americans? That it would offset 10% unemployment and shattered investment portfolios?
Look, passage is the right thing to do. Passage is good politics as well. Passage will help a lot of people.
Your argument that passage of the healthcare bill tomorrow rather than in march following the summit will be a big difference because of the correlation between the economy and the wellbeing of the incumbent party - no. I don't think so.
Especially since Congress ain't passing the bill tomorrow but might after the summit.
People will start seeing the effects with a couple months. So yeah, it will start helping. And anyone who can see you helped them is a potential vote. Also importantly: the faster it passes the faster the base isn't really fucking pissed at you anymore. So you get fundraising started back up again, volunteers, building organization, and all of that good stuff.
And the major argument is more that they have fucked up repeatedly in the past, so expecting them to not fuck up again is naive and asking to be kicked in the balls, metaphorically. If they were smart, it was passed in August or September, people are already seeing the effects, and Congress could re-address the jobs situation that they fucked up by making the stimulus package too small to satisfy Queen Olympia I.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
Yes and had admitted as much pages ago. As well as my own political impotence since I'm to the left of Broder and therefore empower Broder to punch 'hippies' like myself, and because I'm a reliable D vote and can therefore be taken for granted after primaries.
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
That would indeed be great. Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction, though. Hopefully that isn't a harbinger of things to come and they actually manage to improve upon the status quo with passing the Senate bill and tweaks via reconciliation.
Past performance was the semi-miraculous passage of a bill in both chambers despite the intent to philibuster by the opposition that was only disrupted during reconciliation negotiations by a freak off season election in Massachusetts.
Give a little credit for the occurance of what was attempted and failed so often before. Get some historical context around it.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
Yes and had admitted as much pages ago. As well as my own political impotence since I'm to the left of Broder and therefore empower Broder to punch 'hippies' like myself, and because I'm a reliable D vote and can therefore be taken for granted after primaries.
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
That would indeed be great. Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction, though. Hopefully that isn't a harbinger of things to come and they actually manage to improve upon the status quo with passing the Senate bill and tweaks via reconciliation.
Past performance was the semi-miraculous passage of a bill in both chambers that was only disrupted during reconciliation negotiations by a freak off season election in Massachusetts.
Give a little credit for the occurance of what was attempted and failed so often before. Get some historical context around it.
Passing the core of your party's platform for the last 40 years when you have 60% of the legislature isn't really miraculous. Especially when you take so long the public hates the Congress and you thus lose a freak off season election for Teddy Kennedy's seat.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
Yes and had admitted as much pages ago. As well as my own political impotence since I'm to the left of Broder and therefore empower Broder to punch 'hippies' like myself, and because I'm a reliable D vote and can therefore be taken for granted after primaries.
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
That would indeed be great. Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction, though. Hopefully that isn't a harbinger of things to come and they actually manage to improve upon the status quo with passing the Senate bill and tweaks via reconciliation.
Past performance was the semi-miraculous passage of a bill in both chambers that was only disrupted during reconciliation negotiations by a freak off season election in Massachusetts.
Give a little credit for the occurance of what was attempted and failed so often before. Get some historical context around it.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters. If I'm remembering right single-payer was given a floor vote for the first time in Congressional history during the debate. That was also an impressive feat, up until the amendment died.
People will start seeing the effects with a couple months.
How many people will see what effects by when.
I don't think it's going to touch the economy all that much in the very very short term.
This is a sideshow as far as the economy between now and november is concerned.
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
And one of the primary points is that the 'now' is constantly moving closer to the mid-terms thus limiting whatever immediate effects will have both for the mid-terms and for 2012. All of which would have been moot if they would have done things sooner when they did have the supermajority. Health Insurance Reform should not die because Ted Kennedy did.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Speaker on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
People will start seeing the effects with a couple months.
How many people will see what effects by when.
I don't think it's going to touch the economy all that much in the very very short term.
This is a sideshow as far as the economy between now and november is concerned.
The economy generally is a useful shorthand for "Have I got mine."
Seriously, when it is said people vote about the unemployment numbers, what is meant is that people vote according to whether they have a job. Not what the actual numbers are, because the numbers are massaged to say whatever.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Conference Committee, not Reconciliation. And so did I, yet here we are self imploding again.
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow
Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.
It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow
Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.
It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Conference Committee, not Reconciliation. And so did I, yet here we are self imploding again.
Well then the only logical conclusion is that final passage will fall from the sky suddenly without any preliminary actions if it does happen, since it looked like it might happen once before but then was disrupted. Astutely reasoned.
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow
Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.
It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.
6 months is not a few weeks.
The difference between late February and some time in March is though.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Conference Committee, not Reconciliation. And so did I, yet here we are self imploding again.
Well then the only logical conclusion is that final passage will fall from the sky suddenly without any preliminary actions if it does happen, since it looked like it might happen once before but then was disrupted. Astutely reasoned.
Do you understand where we are?
1) We can't pass a new bill in the Senate, because Republicans are assholes.
2) So to pass a bill we need to pass the Senate bill in the House.
3) The House HATES the Senate.
4) In particular, the House hates the Senate bill.
5) So we also need a reconciliation fix from the Senate as a good faith gesture to the House so they pass both the main bill and the fix.
6) So we need fifty votes and Biden. You would think we could write that up and pass it without significant delay, but apparently not. We must first get Republican input on this thing they won't vote for and don't need to vote for.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
People will start seeing the effects with a couple months.
How many people will see what effects by when.
I don't think it's going to touch the economy all that much in the very very short term.
This is a sideshow as far as the economy between now and november is concerned.
The economy generally is a useful shorthand for "Have I got mine."
And you think passage is going to get so many people theirs in six months that it just twirls the whole game around.
Bullshit.
Passage would help, but it would help because:
1: Happy base that isn't dispirited and furiously arguing with eachother on internet boards over whose fault it is that everything fell apart.
2: Discussion moves the fuck on.
3: Obama wins! GOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLL
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Conference Committee, not Reconciliation. And so did I, yet here we are self imploding again.
Well then the only logical conclusion is that final passage will fall from the sky suddenly without any preliminary actions if it does happen, since it looked like it might happen once before but then was disrupted. Astutely reasoned.
Offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait 2 months and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to the Republicans only to be rebutted. You know what we should do? Wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans. I wonder what will happen.
If you think that this is just cover for them to close ranks and bite the bullet to actually pass the damn thing then fine. I don't see what's changed to make the votes there now in comparison to at any point previously, though.
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow
Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.
It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.
6 months is not a few weeks.
The difference between late February and some time in March is though.
So was when Baucus was totally going to finish up his draft proposal with Grassley. But sure, this time things could end differently.
Posts
Boomers suck because they're entitled fuckwits. They still vote liberal.
Age is less significant a long term political party signifier than ethnicity, religion, and class since...well, you're only 19 once. Non-hispanic whites are becoming less significant a share of the overall vote total over time. This is beneficial for Dem's. Particularly since you're never going to get the press to stop obsessing over what well to do middle aged white guys think.
When I said young I meant 18-29 or thereabouts. The baby boomers weren't that old yet in the 60s. IMO the long-term demographic trend is leftwards, and I mean 20-40 years long term.
So is the above 75% / 25% characterization of what happens in elections.
It's not irrationally optimistic nor unrealistic to believe that voting trends will continue along similar lines to what they have been doing for decades.
Not really. Most all poli-sci stuff that I've read has pointed to macro-economic being the primary driver of well attended election results. It's the primary reason that that one professor has managed to accurately predict the winner of each Presidential election for the past 20 years or so.
You can also look at the impact that major Recessions have had on incumbent parties throughout developed Democracies thanks to the ruling parties at that particular moment generally be of different political stripes. Rather than vote in the progressive party with whiz bang solutions, they voted for whoever the other guy was. In some instances this led to progressive pickups in others it led to progressive losses. All taking place under the same basic conditions. This isn't unsubstantiated.
Look, incumbents' performance correlates extremely well with the state of the economy. This is a well understood phenomenon in political science.
All the other crap? Not meaningful. But that explanation is boring, so we focus on things like campaign strategy or Senate procedure. But people don't care about that. People care if they have a job, some place to live, enough income to pay the bills, and enough to spend two weeks some place sunny or with good ski slopes and buy some cool toys.
I was refering to the demographics argument being employed to predict Democratic dominance in the near term.
Apparently you weren't bothered to read the post that launched this tangent. It's okay.
Please respond with a sage remark about the nature of tangents and their use in forums so we can continue blearily fumbling around off topic.
I did. I still don't see what it has to do with anything other than you apparently not liking the arguments of other people in other threads on other topics, but whatever.
All of which is tangential to the healthcare bill and it's passage since it won't miraculously change everything by November of 2012 let alone 2010.
Which begs the question of what in the hell you are trying to employ this argument for.
If anything, the strategy suggested by your well established point would be to drop healthcare like a hot rock and pass jobs bills left and right until November.
Being in charge when things are good isn't a strategy, and making things good takes more than nine months - so it seems to me that we are going to need to be leaning awfully hard on that 25% for whatever the hell it is worth, since the perception that passage isn't political death by Congress is essential to passage happening. If they want to have a summit as part of that 25% go right ahead I say.
It suggests that it would have been better to pass a $1.2t stimulus rather than a $700b one which had its support to State agencies halved by 'moderate' Senate Dem's who won a pyrrhic victory thanks to things being worse than expected. Oh, and also not reappoint Bernanke who just tightened monetary policy in the face of actual deflation.
Where it comes into play with health insurance reform, it argues for pushing the best policy that is likely to actually help the most people rather than what ameliorates press coverage at the moment. Particularly since large swathes of the legislation does get implemented the day the President puts down his pen. (well, technically 45-90 days after once rules are agreed to in the federal register and abloo) However the likes of Bayh and Baucus don't seem to realize that this is how you are ensured electoral safety in favour of playing the news cycle politics. Plus, even if you do lose your seat at least you lost it doing something meaningful rather than actively hampering shit because that's what the CW of the day suggested doing.
Also, not screwing up the rhetoric stuff since you don't want your failures there to actively harm you.
Legislative sessions last longer than 9 months. In fact if the Senate didn't dick around in Baucus' committee and actually hit the August deadline we'd be at around month 5 of implementation right now. Not to mention that, yes, there are going to be losses in the midterm. The midterm is not the only election, though, and the fact that what is done now will drastically impact how things are in November of 2012 is reason to try and do things well. Particularly in the face of pure obstructionism and bad faith efforts so that regardless of what is in the bill it is going to be a 'partisan bill' due to no Republican possibly voting for it.
It barely comes into play in healthcare at all except in obscure and long term ways like wage growth.
The principle is about the economy, and the economy as it is right now. Frankly, I don't care what excuses you make about Al Gore's poor campaign staff. After a boom like the '90s if this principle was so omnipotent the election should never have been close.
Look, it's all well and good to press for the best policy, but you need to press Congressmen for the best policy and they care about other things as well.
So if Congress sees things your way then you've already won and healthcare was enacted in August of '09.
But if Congress doesn't (and they don't seem to) then it makes very little difference. You have to work with what they care about. Is it what they should care about? I doubt Obama cares. He's the only reason this hasn't been pitched overboard already, he's getting the Democrats unified being a single bill, he's created an event that sets a deadline for doing that and could potentially persuade Congresspersons and voters to support a bill passed through reconciliation.
Which is to say, I think he's the best thing going, and what's currently going is the best chance we have so I'm for it.
You realize that we both favor passing the bill via reconciliation this month or next month, right?
The argument is just whether the summit is stupid or useful, and also whether jeering at the Democrats is stupid or useful. I happen to think an event that provides a deadline, influences representatives by providing political cover and may perhaps effect media narrative is worthwhile. It gets the Democrats organized to pass the bill through reconciliation.
Assuredly.
Is the American public made up predominantly of the self insured or are you trying to argue that the passage of a healthcare bill which wouldn't actually effect self-insured premiums between now and November would be such a blessing to . . . how many Americans? That it would offset 10% unemployment, the wreckage of the housing market and shattered investment portfolios?
Look, passage is the right thing to do. Passage is good politics as well. Passage will help a lot of people.
Your argument that passage of the healthcare bill tomorrow rather than in march following the summit will be a big difference because of the correlation between the economy and the wellbeing of the incumbent party - no. I don't think so.
Especially since Congress ain't passing the bill tomorrow but might after the summit.
Yes and had admitted as much pages ago. As well as my own political impotence since I'm to the left of Broder and therefore empower Broder to punch 'hippies' like myself, and because I'm a reliable D vote and can therefore be taken for granted after primaries.
That would indeed be great. Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in that direction, though. Hopefully that isn't a harbinger of things to come and they actually manage to improve upon the status quo with passing the Senate bill and tweaks via reconciliation.
Where did I say a deadline was?
I'm just suggesting it has some utility rather than none at all.
Provides some focus.
People will start seeing the effects with a couple months. So yeah, it will start helping. And anyone who can see you helped them is a potential vote. Also importantly: the faster it passes the faster the base isn't really fucking pissed at you anymore. So you get fundraising started back up again, volunteers, building organization, and all of that good stuff.
And the major argument is more that they have fucked up repeatedly in the past, so expecting them to not fuck up again is naive and asking to be kicked in the balls, metaphorically. If they were smart, it was passed in August or September, people are already seeing the effects, and Congress could re-address the jobs situation that they fucked up by making the stimulus package too small to satisfy Queen Olympia I.
Past performance was the semi-miraculous passage of a bill in both chambers despite the intent to philibuster by the opposition that was only disrupted during reconciliation negotiations by a freak off season election in Massachusetts.
Give a little credit for the occurance of what was attempted and failed so often before. Get some historical context around it.
Passing the core of your party's platform for the last 40 years when you have 60% of the legislature isn't really miraculous. Especially when you take so long the public hates the Congress and you thus lose a freak off season election for Teddy Kennedy's seat.
I do. The road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' which is ultimately the only point that truly matters. If I'm remembering right single-payer was given a floor vote for the first time in Congressional history during the debate. That was also an impressive feat, up until the amendment died.
How many people will see what effects by when.
I don't think it's going to touch the economy all that much in the very very short term.
This is a sideshow as far as the economy between now and november is concerned.
The economy generally is a useful shorthand for "Have I got mine."
Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.
And one of the primary points is that the 'now' is constantly moving closer to the mid-terms thus limiting whatever immediate effects will have both for the mid-terms and for 2012. All of which would have been moot if they would have done things sooner when they did have the supermajority. Health Insurance Reform should not die because Ted Kennedy did.
Your argument then is literally then that "Past performance doesn't seem to be pointing in [the directions of passage]" because "road to getting to this point is rather impressive, however this point is not 'signed into law' ."
So nothing other than passage of a final bill indicates movement toward passing a final bill?
Because it seems to me that all that stuff they did in terms of passing a bill in both houses and then sending it to a reconciliation committee, which is how final bills are passed, really seemed to indicate things pointing toward the passage of a final bill.
Seriously, when it is said people vote about the unemployment numbers, what is meant is that people vote according to whether they have a job. Not what the actual numbers are, because the numbers are massaged to say whatever.
Conference Committee, not Reconciliation. And so did I, yet here we are self imploding again.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow
Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.
It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.
6 months is not a few weeks.
Well then the only logical conclusion is that final passage will fall from the sky suddenly without any preliminary actions if it does happen, since it looked like it might happen once before but then was disrupted. Astutely reasoned.
The difference between late February and some time in March is though.
Do you understand where we are?
1) We can't pass a new bill in the Senate, because Republicans are assholes.
2) So to pass a bill we need to pass the Senate bill in the House.
3) The House HATES the Senate.
4) In particular, the House hates the Senate bill.
5) So we also need a reconciliation fix from the Senate as a good faith gesture to the House so they pass both the main bill and the fix.
6) So we need fifty votes and Biden. You would think we could write that up and pass it without significant delay, but apparently not. We must first get Republican input on this thing they won't vote for and don't need to vote for.
And you think passage is going to get so many people theirs in six months that it just twirls the whole game around.
Bullshit.
Passage would help, but it would help because:
1: Happy base that isn't dispirited and furiously arguing with eachother on internet boards over whose fault it is that everything fell apart.
2: Discussion moves the fuck on.
3: Obama wins! GOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLL
Offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait 2 months and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans only to be rebutted, then...wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to the Republicans only to be rebutted. You know what we should do? Wait a month and offer good faith negotiations to Republicans. I wonder what will happen.
If you think that this is just cover for them to close ranks and bite the bullet to actually pass the damn thing then fine. I don't see what's changed to make the votes there now in comparison to at any point previously, though.
So was when Baucus was totally going to finish up his draft proposal with Grassley. But sure, this time things could end differently.