-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
That's basically the only way. The constitution would have to be amended. No way that's ever happening
TestOfTide
Banned
Except unlike the conservatives, the liberals on SCOTUS have been very consistent AND willing to vote like the other side when there is reason to do so. A lot of the 5-4 conservative decisions were bullshit ones like "we don't have enough time to do a recount in Florida" and "racism is over since we elected Obama so fuck the VRA's pre clearance"
Except what would even be the reasoning for claiming that UHC is unconstitutional?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The Supreme Court gonna strike down Medicare in your scenario too? I have to imagine any future attempt at UHC will be based somewhat on "Medicare For All."
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I don't think you understand the goal of court packing.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
GOP says they are snowflakes and need a safe space away from ethics oversight.
https://twitter.com/jljacobson/status/816136271559004160
https://twitter.com/jljacobson/status/816136271559004160
You think Scalia-like or even worse judges give a fuck about reason nowadays?
Yes. Trump's SCOTUS shortlist includes at least one person who thinks Medicare is unconstitutional if I'm not mistaken.
TestOfTide
Banned
No I do, but I'm saying that packing the court with a bunch of RBGs is still a million times more ethical than packing the court with people like Scalia who literally contradict themselves within 48 hours.
I doubt that Roberts, Kennedy, or even Alito would rule in favor of striking down Medicare.
And a GOP court would never strike down medicare for the same reason that a GOP court won't overturn Gay Marriage: It would hurt the GOP to have such major wedge issues under the Democrats' motives.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
1. Court packing is bad and shouldn't be done.
2. A political party that did court packing would face no political penalty and only elite norms have stopped this from happening.
2. A political party that did court packing would face no political penalty and only elite norms have stopped this from happening.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Good thing it takes 5 justices to make that decision.
Besides, no way AARP lets a justice who thinks Medicare is unconstitutional get confirmed.
So they say in public! I think that has as much merit as the idea that Democrats preferred Bernie Sanders.
Well, yeah, except no-one was running on Black Lives Matter to begin with but yes, each candidate should be tuned more towards their constituency than national, sure.
The real goal of our party should be in insulating and protecting government institutions from party tampering not opening them up for further manipulation from either political party.
Like someone else mentioned, why not just make it illegal for Republicans to run? If your strategy is to rig the system every time before they can cheat the system what fucking system's even left? At that point we're not even arguing over preserving Democracy but how to sustain a one party Authoritarian system, might as well just drop the pretenses and outlaw the other parties at that point. It was just as gross to see people begging the EC to not vote for Donald Trump.
I'll say this, I'm more concerned about Democracy as a whole than my party winning, you seem to be the opposite. I want not to find out how to rig the system to let my party win but to find out how to make my party win within the system.
Well, is it? I think it remains to be seen honestly. I don't think we should assume shit before it's happened. Heck for all we know things get so bad that a conservative court allows it just to keep the Barbarians from storming the gates. Got no idea how things will go down in the future. All I'm saying is if there's a will and a need for UHC then there's a chance to implement it. Period. Maybe through an amendment. Maybe normally through legislation. If there's no will or need because things are going great on that front, then yeah, it's dead. But in that scenario it doesn't matter because things are great!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm genuinely interested in how little discussion of the Supreme Court there has been in the last two months.
TestOfTide
Banned
Can you imagine the backlash? Everyone thinks Kennedy voted in favor of gay marriage for his "legacy"? Here's the reason why: Kennedy knew that if he didn't vote for Gay Marriage, then it would become a major driving force for the Democratic Party.
Now imagine what it would look like if a GOP court struck down MEDICARE. And struck down would mean that it goes away INSTANTLY. The clusterfuck that would cause would hurt the GOP for a generation.
GutsOfThor
Member
I have zero faith for 2018 and 2020. I don't see the rifts that exist today in the Democratic party going away in two or even four years but maybe eight which is why I'm looking ahead to 2024. I personally do not think trump will be beatable in 2020. If he could pull off a win with as little republican support this year, how the fuck do you beat him in four years with the full weight of the repub party behind him? What scapegoat will people fall for in four years? This year it was Muslims and immigrants, will it be black people in 2020?
I'm still in disbelief that we lost every-fucking-thing this year. We are back at square zero....
I'm still in disbelief that we lost every-fucking-thing this year. We are back at square zero....
TestOfTide
Banned
Except if the data showed that this was the first POTUS election where the GOP nominee's voters were mostly voting AGAINST the democrat instead of FOR the GOP.
And who said anything about Bernie? When did I claim that democrats preferred Bernie?
I get that this is kinda hard to understand, but the GOP was trained to hate Hillary THAT much. Not even democrats. SPECIFICALLY HILLARY.
I know of numerous republicans that could never get themselves to vote for Hillary, but would gladly vote Trump out of office so long as it doesn't involve voting for Hillary or Bernie or Warren.
That really isn't true--Kennedy has tended to side with LGBT rights throughout his voting history. It isn't some opportunistic vote. Romer v. Evans (in 1996! Two days after this decision, President Bill Clinton announced that he would pass the Defense of Marriage Act) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), were all landmark LGBT decisions authored by Kennedy, decades before the same sex marriage decisions.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Take: The Penn State/Joe Paterno saga predicted Donald Trump's success by showing that human beings are largely awful in various circumstances.
I agree that conservatives have been conditioned to HATE Hillary Clinton for decades. I don't dispute that.
However, I'm not convinced that most Trump supporters actually dislike him. People know his positions are unpopular, people know he's unpopular and they know what saying they support him means to the minorities and liberals around them. I'm not sure I can really trust any data on this point because it relies on voters telling the truth about something they know is in their best interest to lie about.
I also don't trust the mindset of anyone who says they thought Trump was the lesser of two evils. Those people are either complete idiots not worth our time or flat out lying. If someone supports Trump because they agree with them, I can sorta respect that, as much as I could respect, say, a foreign army that I must kill at all costs but respect none the less, they're my enemy but I can respect that, if they blanket themselves with some bullshit excuse like "lesser of two evils" they can fuck right off.
Edit: And I brought up Bernie because a popular narrative for some is that Bernie was the preferred Democratic nominee but was cheated by his party, which is false he lost and Hillary got more votes. Same with Trump, for being so hated he sure did beat down a bunch of other candidates by getting the most votes.
Kevitivity
Member
That's never going to happen.
What we really need to tort reform. Now that the Dems are out of the picture we might be able to finally achieve this.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
My hottest take: If other countries didn't respond by boycotting the United States, Trump would suffer no political penalty from nuking North Korea and killing all 25 million people there.
.... Tort Reform has been estimated to reduce health care costs by 2%.
........ You need a bit more than that.
.... Tort Reform has been estimated to reduce health care costs by 2%.
........ You need a bit more than that.
Kevitivity
Member
Would love a source for that zinger.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I mean, I was literally reading through these papers yesterday so I definitely have sources for these claims...
http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/12/30/jleo.ewq017.short
Well, we can always start getting our hopes up and get a taste of 2017-flavored disappointment tomorrow/later today.
And also, regarding unfavorables, I think there's always an element of people telling you what they think you want to hear. Like take Hillary Clinton's unfavorables, you had people in our party feeling they had to play that game too, acting as if they didn't like Hillary Clinton but that she was the lesser evil against Donald Trump.
The media did such a good job making both of these names so toxic that people who want to support them many times feel they can't because "objectively" they're shitty people who otherwise should never be in office or some shit. I'd like to see the real number on how many people had unfavorable views of Clinton truly felt that way versus how many felt they needed to say that because she was seemingly unpopular nationally.
The media did such a good job making both of these names so toxic that people who want to support them many times feel they can't because "objectively" they're shitty people who otherwise should never be in office or some shit. I'd like to see the real number on how many people had unfavorable views of Clinton truly felt that way versus how many felt they needed to say that because she was seemingly unpopular nationally.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Most hated Hillary from the time she announced her candidacy.
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
Kevitivity
Member
Thank you. I was referring to tort reform with the entire U.S. medical industry, top to bottom.
I tasted tort-less medicine in the Army. Not thank you.
True story, I broke my neck in Iraq. The doc told me I was fine and gave me Motrin.
Eh, I think you underestimate how volatile the Trump-GOP relationship really is. I still see it as one big fuck-up away from creating a major rift within the Republican base. Plus, I feel like all the dem infighting is more resultant from how raw everyone is from, as you pointed out, how we've lost all the federal branches in what should've been a shoe-in. I think once the GOP gets its circus underway, it'll be easy for the dems to rally together, especially with a candidate without all of Clinton's baggage.
This will not significantly lower costs, and it certainly won't slow the overall rate of growth.
Also if it's just caps it's bullshit. Oh botched surgery left you paralyzed from the waist down? non fatal negligence is capped at 50k good luck with the rest of your life!
The democrats were open to including some tort reform in the ACA if republicans had been interested in participating in governing at all.
I know this person (who is a woman) who absolutely detests Hillary and think she is the most evil person there. I have never seen her hate Obama as much as she does for Hillary which was beyond infuriating to even reason with her at all. She's a sucker who wholeheartedly believed Hillary was a hypocrite for liking Beyonce and Jayzee and defended shit like Trump proudly boasting about how he raped women because it was just "entertainment"
I mean, she's not terrible, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that the ostensibly only major "liberal" cable news network is hiring a former Fox News host.
Well sure. Like I said, I know the story, I know lots of people myself who think she's the devil.
Just, underlying some of this conditioning has got to be an actual bias. Like take the Beyonce example, maybe she is just pandering and she disapproves of that but perhaps she just doesn't like the idea of a white woman liking "black" music, whereas Obama'd be expected to like it. I also know some people who hated Obama but didn't like to bring it up because they thought it'd sound racist to criticize a black President. Course, I also know lots of people who openly think he's the worst thing ever to happen to America too.
What I'd like to know is how much of these narratives are merely intellectual cover for people's true opinions. The real nitty gritty truth. Like take Hillary, I'm guilty of acting lukewarm on her around people I know because I felt I had to because that was the position they had already taken, so when discussing politics with people at work trying to get them not to vote Trump I was already starting from the position that "yeah Hillary's not great.... but," if someone had polled me I'd have probably said the same thing reflexively but not out of any true dislike of Hillary. I mean, I did prefer Bernie but I don't have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton either. But because the negatives around her were so great out in the real world all my discussions with real life people around me just subconsciously went down to that level. I was never going to convince someone who thinks she's the Devil that she's actually a pretty good candidate after all, might as well aim for the lower fruit, agree she's not exactly great but that her evils are overblown and she's still better than Trump. That's what I was thinking pre-election season.
Somewhat more interesting, to me anyways, would be whether among that was also a subconscious desire to not seem too liberal amongst my peers since I do have to work with them. On a personal level how much was I agreeing she wasn't the best candidate ever to advance my agenda of trying to appeal halfway to them on at least taking my unfavorable opinion of Trump into consideration as opposed to dismissing it entirely as a liberal rant versus just me wanting to protect myself? And I can't measure that.
But when I say I wanna see the receipts as to unfavorables this is more what I mean here, and I don't know of any real data for this nor do I know if there can be. But I imagine many Trump supporters also wen through that phase. How many of them felt they needed to temper their enthusiasm, or at the least agreement with his stated policies, out of a desire to keep things civil with their friends and coworkers?
And it's not just the other party's supporters either, when talking to Bernie supporters again I was tempering my view of Clinton trying to meet them in the middle and keep them engaged
But another thing these unfavorables do is give us an excuse to absolve ourselves of responsibility if things happen. How much of it is lying to yourself? I mean, Hillary's a politician sure and she made money from it, not the most noble thing, I get it, but not exactly out of the ordinary for our political system either, if you're a lesser of two evils person how the hell does that stack up as worse than some of the things Trump says he'd support and that he's done? I literally can not understand how someone could look at it, weigh the two things and say Hillary's more evil than Trump. So I imagine a lot of people are using the already unfavorable opinions of both candidates as moral and emotional cover for themselves. They didn't want to risk registering Muslims and kicking out American citizens with foreign born parents, but, they just had no choice, Hillary was just that bad. Whatever. I don't buy that. My honest opinion is that the unusually high unfavorables gives them the ability to deflect responsibility for actions they actually, deep down condone. Hillary was the worse candidate because in truth they're ok if the worst predictions of Trump come to pass. But now they can run around judgement free safe in the warm fuzzy blanket of hating both candidates while secretly liking the one that got in. That's what I believe.
I do not believe for a second that someone who hated Hillary Clinton for moral or ethical reasons, real or imagined, could turn around and vote for Trump, conditioned or not. They were either voting Republican regardless anyways or they liked what they saw.
Where is this 8% gap exactly?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The GOP has drawn a bunch of R+5 districts that, with a +3 incumbency bonus, makes a lot of R+8 districts in reality that would fall if there was a gap of 8 or 9 points nationally. They have set up a system where they could get completely wiped out in the House if there is a wave actually...
If Trump has 25% approval in 2018, there will be a 8 or 9% House voting gap.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
That was the margin of victory nationwide in House elections in 2006. You asked if the Democrats would have won in 2006 with 2010 gerrymandering. The answer is yes - not even that level of gerrymandering can stop a 8% loss nationwide.
Ohh, I see.
Hmm, careful guys, you're giving me a little too much hopium here.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I mean, we need to actually work, but we can easily win if we work and Trump sucks as bad as he will.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
George W. Bush's dropped that low and W started out at 70% approval! Trump is at 41% and his entire first two years is about cutting food stamps and health care for the sick to pay for tax cuts while he commits wild corruption and might accidentally start a few wars.
W was genuinely likable and dropped to 25%. No one views Trump as likable and Ryan's agenda is impossibly unpopular, this can definitely happen.
It's okay man. Just one hit never killed anyone. This one is free.
Retromelon
Member
I agree with xenodude, it took george bush jr 7 years, the iraq war and a billion other scandals to get to 25% (katrina, abu ghraib, valerie plame and so on) and trump's supporters are more rabid and die hard than george's were, many of them felt he wasn't conservative enough for pandering to the latino vote and not cutting entitlements enough for their liking
How many conservatives would actually enjoy losing their benefits once it hits them?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump will have that many scandals within six months.
It took W seven years to lose 45% in his approval rating. Trump needs to lose 16% in his approval rating to reach 25%. That's not many people he needs to lose.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Alito might. Roberts and Kennedy won't but just need for a liberal justice to pass away and Kennedy to retire and you'll have Alito as the median judge.
Retromelon
Member
You guys have an impressive amount of faith in the guy whose base stuck with him through grab them by the pussygate to lose their favor
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Worth remembering here that Bush got a huge, huge influx of approval after 9/11 such that he had a good midterm in 2002.
Also worth remembering that midterms favor the nonincumbent party for basically all of postwar America. Remember that 1994 was the year that ~50 years of the Democrats controlling the House came to an end, and I don't think Clinton was that unpopular.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
How did the ultimate Dixiecrat state, Kentucky, vote in Rand Paul in a primary?
Rand Paul is the opposite of everything Dixiecrats want.
His base is 25% of people.
Pussygate also didn't take their health insurance away.
Rand Paul is the opposite of everything Dixiecrats want.
His base is 25% of people.
Pussygate also didn't take their health insurance away.
The primaries are over. The election is over.
His base are the people who voted for him.
Look at the Southern states. Look at Alabama. Republicans habitually vote in people who then continue to plunge their states into poverty. Do not underestimate the loyalty of the Republican voter. Any winning strategy for Democrats moving forward needs to take into account the (very real) possibility that every single person who voted for Trump in '16 will vote for him again.
How do you get the votes? How do you mobilize YOUR base? How do you mobilize the voters who didn't come out? These are the questions Democrats need to be worrying about. Stop salivating over Republican voters. We don't need them.
I think it's more a point of motivating voters who for whatever reason sat this election out (both candidates are the saaaaaaame) than trying to woo Republicans in this case. Though there may end up being a case for Trump voters turning against him if they're sufficiently pissed off about something, but for those cases I don't think it's necessary for Dems to bother trying to directly appeal to them.
- Status