2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Ajidica]

If the House passed a pro Main St bill and the GoP Senate shoots it down it gives Democrats something to run on that would decimate Republicans. Ironsided's point is that the dem leadership, Pelosi/Schumer aren't willing to do that because they essentially take money from the same people the GoP does.

At the risk of being rude, have you been paying attention to US politics for the last decade?
The GOP is famously obstructionist. They did everything in their power to kill the ACA, and got rewarded with a House majority. They killed widely accepted gun control under Obama, and increased their House majority. They have opposed with tooth and nail everything the Democrats proposed while Obama was in office, and got rewarded for it with the House, Senate, and Presidency. Indeed, had the Democratic Party proposed a Ironclad/Socrates99 accepted Covid relief bill that died in the Senate, our ever-so-unscrupulous corporate media would be full of rent-a-gobs talking about how the Democrats 'injected partisan politics into an urgently needed relief bill', or 'destroyed the bills chance by refusing to negotiate with Republicans'.
In the interests of fairness, look at the Democrats from 2016-2018: aside from a brief flirtation with bipartisanship over 'Infrastructure Week' or openness to doing a Grand Bargain over immigration (where they trade the Wall for DACA gaining statutory authority), the Democrats opposed everything the GOP/Trump Administration tried; and their reward was a landslide House victory.
Based on political behavior and outcomes over the last ten years, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the GOP would be decimated had they opposed a Democratic Covid relief bill for being too liberal. Indeed, based on what I've heard from some friends who follow the rightwing nutjob media, there is grumbling about the GOP congresscritters who voted for the Covid relief bill. Specifically, the bill was a vehicle for the Democrats to do [insert conspiracy of the week] and blindside the GOP who, whether due to being secret globalists or were caught up in the emergency, were unable to oppose it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Another stable genius:

 

[Estebonrober]

Another stable genius:

well marks for honesty i guess

 

[Kyriakos]

I would suspect his response has more to do with sense of entitlement...

Will be interesting to see if twitter bans him

 

[Socrates99]

At the risk of being rude, have you been paying attention to US politics for the last decade?
The GOP is famously obstructionist. They did everything in their power to kill the ACA, and got rewarded with a House majority. They killed widely accepted gun control under Obama, and increased their House majority. They have opposed with tooth and nail everything the Democrats proposed while Obama was in office, and got rewarded for it with the House, Senate, and Presidency. Indeed, had the Democratic Party proposed a Ironclad/Socrates99 accepted Covid relief bill that died in the Senate, our ever-so-unscrupulous corporate media would be full of rent-a-gobs talking about how the Democrats 'injected partisan politics into an urgently needed relief bill', or 'destroyed the bills chance by refusing to negotiate with Republicans'.
In the interests of fairness, look at the Democrats from 2016-2018: aside from a brief flirtation with bipartisanship over 'Infrastructure Week' or openness to doing a Grand Bargain over immigration (where they trade the Wall for DACA gaining statutory authority), the Democrats opposed everything the GOP/Trump Administration tried; and their reward was a landslide House victory.
Based on political behavior and outcomes over the last ten years, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the GOP would be decimated had they opposed a Democratic Covid relief bill for being too liberal. Indeed, based on what I've heard from some friends who follow the rightwing nutjob media, there is grumbling about the GOP congresscritters who voted for the Covid relief bill. Specifically, the bill was a vehicle for the Democrats to do [insert conspiracy of the week] and blindside the GOP who, whether due to being secret globalists or were caught up in the emergency, were unable to oppose it.

Yeah, actually 2018 was a good example. The Republicans from 2014 on had run on repeal and replacing the ACA. When they totally bungled it Democrats pointed it out and had a very successful 2018 midterm. Democrats need to just crank out messaging bills to die on Mitch's desk or get voted down by the Senate, its essentially what Republicans did when the House repealed the ACA a dozen times under Obama. It's what won them executive and legislative control in 2016. The path to power when you are only in control of one legislative body is to show people how you'd do better than the party in control.

Mitch needs to get liability immunity against Covid-19 suits passed, it's his main goal in the next relief bill. Democrats could put a lot of good things in the House version and kick back and watch what the GoP does with it in the Senate. Trump is likely to put pressure on Mitch because he desperately needs to get something done before the election if he wants a shot at a second term.

Yeah I watch politics. Even though dems only control the house they have a ton of power in this particular situation. The reason I know they're likely to squander it is because they have terrible leadership bought and paid for.

If they take the path Iron and I are talking about they could get some real wins for the avg Joe. If they pre negotiate they're likely to get rolled with some halfassed relief.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, actually 2018 was a good example. The Republicans from 2014 on had run on repeal and replacing the ACA. When they totally bungled it Democrats pointed it out and had a very successful 2018 midterm. Democrats need to just crank out messaging bills to die on Mitch's desk or get voted down by the Senate, its essentially what Republicans did when the House repealed the ACA a dozen times under Obama. It's what won them executive and legislative control in 2016. The path to power when you are only in control of one legislative body is to show people how you'd do better than the party in control.

The Democratic electorate is different from the Republican electorate though. The Democrats won the suburbs in 2018, and by extension the House along with a strong position for 2020, by presenting themselves as a responsible party that wants to govern instead of engaging in partisan hackery. If the Democrats were to start doing what you are suggesting, passing bills in the House that have no chance of passing the Senate, thanks to our unscrupulous corporate media, will ensure that the message passed back to the suburbs is that the Democrats are engaging in the usual Washington partisan games and aren't really interested in governing. The Democrats path to victory - in the House, Senate, and Presidential races - is to present themselves as the responsible party that is serious about governing.

Mitch needs to get liability immunity against Covid-19 suits passed, it's his main goal in the next relief bill. Democrats could put a lot of good things in the House version and kick back and watch what the GoP does with it in the Senate. Trump is likely to put pressure on Mitch because he desperately needs to get something done before the election if he wants a shot at a second term.

I'm not so sure about that. There are several months until the election and we haven't seen the beginning of the of the GOP fear and grievance campaign (because they certainly don't have a record to run on in in competitive areas). What would be in the 'Save Trump's Bacon" covid relief bill? The GOP is already trying to kill income assistance and working protections. I can't see them going for child care assistance. The primary thing they want is liability immunity from Covid suits, and to their credit the Democratic leadership has given that a hard no.

If they take the path Iron and I are talking about they could get some real wins for the avg Joe. If they pre negotiate they're likely to get rolled with some halfassed relief.

Had the Democrats played hardball with the initial covid relief, I'm genuinely not sure it would have passed the Senate or Presidential veto with the end result of no relief bill. I might be wrong and you could be right, but your path is far riskier for the Democrats with a high chance of it blowing up in their face. GOP voters are already living in wacko world so any blowback on their side is unlikely. The Democrats get no relief bill, a major policy loss, and blowback from their base for not doing something. Had Pelosi gambled on the relief bill and it failed, I'm willing to bet you would be criticizing Pelosi for not knuckling down and accepting a poor relief bill over no bill.
In other words, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong; merely that the Democratic strategy for the covid relief bills is not as pathetic/incompetent as Ironsided suggested.

 

[Lexicus]

Had the Democrats played hardball with the initial covid relief, I'm genuinely not sure it would have passed the Senate or Presidential veto with the end result of no relief bill. I might be wrong and you could be right, but your path is far riskier for the Democrats with a high chance of it blowing up in their face. GOP voters are already living in wacko world so any blowback on their side is unlikely. The Democrats get no relief bill, a major policy loss, and blowback from their base for not doing something. Had Pelosi gambled on the relief bill and it failed, I'm willing to bet you would be criticizing Pelosi for not knuckling down and accepting a poor relief bill over no bill.
In other words, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong; merely that the Democratic strategy for the covid relief bills is not as pathetic/incompetent as Ironsided suggested.

Yeah, I have to disagree with this. Democrats should have refused to concede anything in the bill to Republicans. The Republicans are in power, they are going to be blamed for any failure to take action on this. That does give the Democrats leverage, but the best way to use it is to refuse to do anything and allow the Republicans to pay the price in the elections.

The basic point is, as you said above, the only strategy to get good legislation is to break GOP control of the Senate and take the Presidency. The only strategy with a prayer of allowing the Democrats to take the Senate is to allow the economy to collapse completely and let voters blame the GOP.

I'm not saying this is 100% guaranteed to succeed, of course, but I do think it is the best option for the Democrats right now.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, I have to disagree with this. Democrats should have refused to concede anything in the bill to Republicans. The Republicans are in power, they are going to be blamed for any failure to take action on this. That does give the Democrats leverage, but the best way to use it is to refuse to do anything and allow the Republicans to pay the price in the elections.

But will that blame be enough to swing the election? Will the suburban voters than won the Democrats the House in 2018 still turn out in 2020 if the Democrats play hardball and the covid relief bill dies in committee? Or will those voters declare a plague on both houses and blame the Democrats for putting politics above country?

The basic point is, as you said above, the only strategy to get good legislation is to break GOP control of the Senate and take the Presidency. The only strategy with a prayer of allowing the Democrats to take the Senate is to allow the economy to collapse completely and let voters blame the GOP.

Which will never happen because, as a party of government, one of the Democrat's primary concerns is making sure the economy doesn't collapse. An economic collapse will hurt many groups of their base - the young, the economically precarious, and minorities- more than the GOP base. Despite recent focus on the pro-Trump 'working class', the GOP path to victory still relies on middle to upper income professionals who, lets be honest, are the least affected by Covid. They have savings, not reliant on public transit, not living in communal dwellings, have savings, and frequently are able to work from home. If the Democrats were to play hardball and get an economic collapse, how much blowback do you think they would get from their voters for gambling with their livelihoods?

 

[Lexicus]

But will that blame be enough to swing the election? Will the suburban voters than won the Democrats the House in 2018 still turn out in 2020 if the Democrats play hardball and the covid relief bill dies in committee? Or will those voters declare a plague on both houses and blame the Democrats for putting politics above country?

I don't know, but if it's the latter I think we're doomed to civil war anyway.

Which will never happen because, as a party of government, one of the Democrat's primary concerns is making sure the economy doesn't collapse.

Which is exactly their problem. This whole "party of government" stuff just means "party of weaklings who offer concessions at the slightest pressure." If the Democrats had some faith in themselves and their ideas they'd understand that being the party of responsible government means limiting Republican power to the greatest extent possible, and obstructing the Republicans from governing at every possible opportunity.

 

[innonimatu]

They did everything in their power to kill the ACA, and got rewarded with a House majority

ACA was a government-imposed handout to the "industry" of insurers. Republicans just wanted insurers to be able to abuse people even more, but ACA itself was no good thing.

If the Democrats had some faith in themselves and their ideas

They'd have to have ideas for that... what are the current ideas of the Democrats? They're going into elections this year promising to change what? Their candidate with ideas was shot down.

 

[Lexicus]

ACA was a government-imposed handout to the "industry" of insurers. Republicans just wanted insurers to be able to abuse people even more, but ACA itself was no good thing.

Better than the regime that prevailed before. Without it, it's difficult to imagine my younger brother (as just one of many examples), with a slew of "preexisting conditions", ever being able to get health insurance.
I'm not really interested in getting into a whole thing to defend the ACA, because obviously I support Medicare-for-All or something similar, but I think Europeans in particular may not have a good sense of just how utterly awful the pre-ACA situation was.

All I'll say is there's a reason the Republicans found themselves unable to repeal it even when they ostensibly had the votes.

They'd have to have ideas for that... what are the current ideas of the Democrats? They're going into elections this year promising to change what? Their candidate with ideas was shot down.

That's part of the problem. There is a subset of Democrats who have real ideas and have faith in those ideas.

 

[Ajidica]

ACA was a government-imposed handout to the "industry" of insurers. Republicans just wanted insurers to be able to abuse people even more, but ACA itself was no good thing.

I realize this is the trendy thing to say, but I think you are overlooking just how bad the US insurance system had become pre-ACA. The ACA has many flaws and that it is in effect a massive subsidy for the insurance industry is a valid one, but I would far rather have the ACA, warts and all, than pre-ACA health insurance.

They'd have to have ideas for that... what are the current ideas of the Democrats? They're going into elections this year promising to change what? Their candidate with ideas was shot down.

Quite a lot actually, to the point even writers over at The Intercept are cautiously optimistic.
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/biden-unity-task-force-ocasio-cortez/
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/22...omises-to-end-forever-wars-and-regime-change/
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/890814007/biden-outlines-2-trillion-climate-plan
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/8891...iden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency

 

[Takhisis]

Another stable genius:

I was going to post that one when I read it. This is the kind of insanity whose enabling was heralded by the admission, in 2008, of Sarah Palin as VP nominee.

 

[Takhisis]

So Fox's latest poll has Biden ahead by 1 point in fracking Texas.

 

[tuckerkao]

So Fox's latest poll has Biden ahead by 1 point in fracking Texas.

Not a surprise, Texas has been hit really hard by the Coronavirus because President Trump and the Republicans reopened up too fast.

 

[Zardnaar]

So Fox's latest poll has Biden ahead by 1 point in fracking Texas.

Link?

 

[Sommerswerd]

RCP currently has Biden up at 50% again finally, but Trump has been creeping upwards for weeks... just shy of 41%...

At this point I'm wondering who in the world that 9% are? Sniveling cowards, so committed to their milquetoast "both-sides-are-bad" farce that they just can't bear to pick a side at long last? Or maybe its mostly people who've already chosen, really, but they are in love with the attention and/or air of aloof superiority that pretending to be on the fence affords them?

To be fair, I' sure there's at least 1% or so in there who are absolutely determined to vote third party and/or write-in someone... but I still think most are just cowards.

 

[mitsho]

Apathetics and don't care's, + 5% of protest voters that either leave the presidential line blank or go for third parties.

I'm guessing the percentages only go for likely voters, otherwise the numbers would be lower (36% to 28%, I'm not sure how many Americans usually vote). They can go even lower if mak the percentages by population and not eligible voters. The point is, these numbers are misleading in that they give the impression of people being interested in politics. They are generally not, more preoccupied by their own lifes.

 

[Zardnaar]

Apathetics and don't care's, + 5% of protest voters that either leave the presidential line blank or go for third parties.

I'm guessing the percentages only go for likely voters, otherwise the numbers would be lower (36% to 28%, I'm not sure how many Americans usually vote). They can go even lower if mak the percentages by population and not eligible voters. The point is, these numbers are misleading in that they give the impression of people being interested in politics. They are generally not, more preoccupied by their own lifes.

Playing with numbers.
1 in 3 don't vote. 10% of what's left don't care brings it down to 60% approx.

They do vote though and trump lost by 3 million votes. Which is what 1.5% of eligible voters? Brings the number required to win close to 30%.

Theoretically I think you can win on 21% of the vote, win the biggest states by one bite each, Lose the rest 100%.

 

[Patine]

Playing with numbers.
1 in 3 don't vote. 10% of what's left don't care brings it down to 60% approx.

They do vote though and trump lost by 3 million votes. Which is what 1.5% of eligible voters? Brings the number required to win close to 30%.

Theoretically I think you can win on 21% of the vote, win the biggest states by one bite each, Lose the rest 100%.

Apathetics and don't care's, + 5% of protest voters that either leave the presidential line blank or go for third parties.

I'm guessing the percentages only go for likely voters, otherwise the numbers would be lower (36% to 28%, I'm not sure how many Americans usually vote). They can go even lower if mak the percentages by population and not eligible voters. The point is, these numbers are misleading in that they give the impression of people being interested in politics. They are generally not, more preoccupied by their own lifes.

Also, American voters being cheated and having no true, real choice in their rigged, corrupted elections affects polls and results, too, just like it does in Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Uganda, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, frankly.