Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

A bunch of non-randomly selected anecdotes are not what analysis is made off of.

Rand Paul joins Susan Collins as the second Senate Republican to argue against repeal and delay (and Paul's reasoning is shockingly correct for why repeal and delay is bad)

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-all-of-obamacare-and-replace-immediately/

If a third Senate Republican comes out against repeal and delay, then the GOP will have to change tactics and switch to a longer debate about what to replace Obamacare with before repealing it and that would improve the odds of Obamacare surviving.

Ignoring how campaigns actually function in a move to copy Obama '08/'12 with a candidate with none of the charisma of Obama was the analysis that led to Clinton's team ignoring the ground game.

I mean I think the issue is that's its not clear how large vs. how loud the whiny anti-establishment Left is. Like should Clinton have given those Wall Street speeches? Probably not. However, after the primary, if the Wall Street speeches was actually in any way part of the rationale one used to scream at Clinton during the GE or vote 3rd part or vote Trump, especially given who he is and the MO of the GOP, then you are a moron. I remember that whole bit when people were screaming and protesting that George Clooney was holding a massive fundraiser for Clinton. If we can't even let a staunch liberal like Clooney give us money because it will upset some voters, how do we compete with the Koch Bros? You can argue that money didn't help Clinton but cutting off access to that money seems unlikely to help too?

I think the point is that it can be hard and dangerous to appease a group if what they want or what they are upset about isn't rational or based on fact. This isn't the same as saying "excommunicate everyone who favored Sanders" but rather a comment that some number of them (probably a function of youth and probably louder than they are large in number) are dumb and want dumb things and think dumb things.

That takedown of Rent that got posted a few days ago was well-timed.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think that the goal of universal health care was a bad goal to have. It should have been "health care for the poor and sick."

You could have just had a public option where the sick can buy some affordable health insurance and then the rich pay the bill via taxes for how much money this public option loses.

The individual mandate and the regulations were so unpopular that the GOP won in 2010 and might repeal the whole thing now and those things were needed for universal health care, but not giving the poor and sick affordable health care.

 

[kirblar]

I think that the goal of universal health care was a bad goal to have. It should have been "health care for the poor and sick."

You could have just had a public option where the sick can buy some affordable health insurance and then the rich pay the bill via taxes for how much money this public option loses.

The individual mandate and the regulations were so unpopular that the GOP won in 2010 and might repeal the whole thing now and those things were needed for universal health care, but not giving the poor and sick affordable health care.

This doesn't work because "poor and sick" = "minorities/freeloaders/THOSE people" to so many (white) voters. It's messaging that doubles down on the biggest problems you have.

The next time Dems have Pres/Congressional control, they have to just go HAM. They will have 2 years to push as much through as humanly possible.

 

[Abinash117]

A bunch of non-randomly selected anecdotes are not what analysis is made off of.

Rand Paul joins Susan Collins as the second Senate Republican to argue against repeal and delay (and Paul's reasoning is shockingly correct for why repeal and delay is bad)

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-all-of-obamacare-and-replace-immediately/

If a third Senate Republican comes out against repeal and delay, then the GOP will have to change tactics and switch to a longer debate about what to replace Obamacare with before repealing it and that would improve the odds of Obamacare surviving.

The GOP will likely gut ACA using reconciliation, possibly including the individual mandate. It'll be easier, but possible more destructive as killing the the individual mandate and keeping people with pre-existing conditions will destroy the health industry.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This doesn't work because "poor and sick" = "minorities/freeloaders/THOSE people" to so many (white) voters. It's messaging that doubles down on the biggest problems you have.

The next time Dems have Pres/Congressional control, they have to just go HAM. They will have 2 years to push as much through as humanly possible.

Uhh, the stuff they did clearly didn't work either in terms of popularity because those people you mentioned still view Obamacare as a handout for black people while some non-racists can still be mad about the Mandate and regulations.

The GOP will likely gut ACA using reconciliation, possibly including the individual mandate. It'll be easier, but possible more destructive as killing the the individual mandate and keeping people with pre-existing conditions will destroy the health industry.

.... The article I posted is Rand Paul arguing against doing that because it would destroy the market immediately and make the tens of millions with Obamacare very upset.

 

[studyguy]

Regardless of how this looks, I'll take an oversight committee staying intact over a neutered one any day.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I mean I think the issue is that's its not clear how large vs. how loud the whiny anti-establishment Left is. Like should Clinton have given those Wall Street speeches? Probably not. However, after the primary, if the Wall Street speeches was actually in any way part of the rationale one used to scream at Clinton during the GE or vote 3rd part or vote Trump, especially given who he is and the MO of the GOP, then you are a moron. I remember that whole bit when people were screaming and protesting that George Clooney was holding a massive fundraiser for Clinton. If we can't even let a staunch liberal like Clooney give us money because it will upset some voters, how do we compete with the Koch Bros? You can argue that money didn't help Clinton but cutting off access to that money seems unlikely to help too?

I think the point is that it can be hard and dangerous to appease a group if what they want or what they are upset about isn't rational or based on fact. This isn't the same as saying "excommunicate everyone who favored Sanders" but rather a comment that some number of them (probably a function of youth and probably louder than they are large in number) are dumb and want dumb things and think dumb things.

Those same people would not have complained had George Clooney been raising that money for Bernie, because Bernie got the trust of the anti-wallstreet young base where as Clinton did not. Like I said before it isn't always logical why people favor a certain candidate or don't, but getting on people's good side and having faith that they will represent you is a political skill and gives you more capitol and room to do things they may not like but might be necessary.

But even then, Trump won the Presidency without much of any financial support at all and is the first candidate to win raising less money in like forever. So I think money is going to be less important especially how easily information is spread now and that how anyone can look up anything online and on social media for free.

And again people went that way and thought things because Bernie was saying them. Maybe they follow a different narrative for a different candidate in the future. But gaining the trust of the youth who literally has nothing and no future right now is a massive priority.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think that the goal of universal health care was a bad goal to have. It should have been "health care for the poor and sick."

You could have just had a public option where the sick can buy some affordable health insurance and then the rich pay the bill via taxes for how much money this public option loses.

The individual mandate and the regulations were so unpopular that the GOP won in 2010 and might repeal the whole thing now and those things were needed for universal health care, but not giving the poor and sick affordable health care.

kirblar is right. Universal benefits are far more popular than targeted benefits because you can weaponize the people not receiving them to hate those that do.

Nobody calls medicare patients and social security recipients moochers.

 

[kirblar]

Uhh, the stuff they did clearly didn't work either in terms of popularity because those people you mentioned still view Obamacare as a handout for black people while some non-racists can still be mad about the Mandate and regulations

Correct. I'm not saying it worked well, I'm saying that yours is even worse because it doubles down on precisely that.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Correct. I'm not saying it worked well, I'm saying that yours is even worse because it doubles down on precisely that.

It doubles down on the "handout!" people but it wouldn't upset the people who aren't racist but just don't like the idea of having to buy health insurance.

I mean, you can't make racists more upset about government "handouts" than with Obamacare. It is their white whale.

 

[kirblar]

It doubles down on the "handout!" people but it wouldn't upset the people who aren't racist but just don't like the idea of having to buy health insurance.

I mean, you can't make racists more upset about government "handouts" than with Obamacare. It is their white whale.

You can increase it among the swings on the margins.

You have to account for the diet racists and lose as few as possible.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

You can increase it among the swings on the margins.

You have to account for the diet racists and lose as few as possible.

Among independents, people like food stamps and dislike Obamacare even though Obamacare is universal and food stamps is a "handout."

 

[Fenderputty]

So nothing is worth doing if it doesn't provide an economic benefit?

It does increase tax revenue in the long run as they do tend to make better choices in life and obtain better incomes.

I do think that way of framing things is somewhat reprehensible though. But, Americuh!!!!

Higher education and not strapping those who seek it with debt will provide economic benefits though!

What metric and how that's measured is where this gets difficult. It's not easy to measure like a direct stimulus would be via a jobs bill.

 

[Grexeno]

So what's the best way to follow specific people in Congress?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

If we want universal coverage we should just incrementally expand our single payer systems until they're universal. Trying to reimplement Obamacare even though no one likes it is dumb and the most popular and successful part was the Medicaid expansion.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Literally every infrastructure project funded by the stimulus featured big ass road/construction signs that said "this project is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," in all 50 states. There was plenty of information out there, plenty of news reports, etc etc.

I'm not convinced Trump's mastery of the media would simply translate to any other politician/person.

Most of the Obama stimulus wasn't about infrastructure projects. There's no media to master when the package is too small and poorly designed given the economic conditions at the time. The Trump team's infrastructure package could easily be a bad plan just like Obama's and he will get raked over the coals for it when it doesn't deliver.

 

[Vixdean]

Weeeeeeeeee

Good, the same needs to happen when their legislation for repealing Obamacare with no replacement goes live.

If we want universal coverage we should just incrementally expand our single payer systems until they're universal. Trying to reimplement Obamacare even though no one likes it is dumb and the most popular and successful part was the Medicaid expansion.

Actually the most popular and successful part was the insurance industry reforms, because those affected the most people. Free preventative care, free contraception, no lifetime maximums, etc.... The only part of the bill that people don't like is the individual mandate, for the same reason that people don't like taxes: they are stupid and lazy.

 

[kirblar]

If we want universal coverage we should just incrementally expand our single payer systems until they're universal. Trying to reimplement Obamacare even though no one likes it is dumb and the most popular and successful part was the Medicaid expansion.

That won't work because our coverage to most working age doesn't go through those systems currently.

You have to sever the employment/insurance link and replace it with universal coverage right there on the spot to make it work. Using the same infrastucture is key to this.

Public option is fine, but single payer just won't work with how our entire system is built.

 

[Plinko]

Weeeeeeeeee

It works, people.

And they can't tell if you're a republican or a democrat.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Weeeeeeeeee

Hey look, people harassing their congressperson's offices actually changed policy.

Too bad this probably came more from older GOP voters who will make their voices heard if something upsets them (because seriously how fucking dumb was the House GOP in this regard? "Duh gee let's undercut the ethics committee, no way this can be interpreted as brazenly corrupt").

You know, as opposed to young liberals who don't know their Congressperson from their own asshole.

The silver lining of a Trump presidency is that he'll bear the blame for anything bad that happens over the next four years. Bernie claiming that tens of millions of college students rallying outside of McConnell's office to get free healthcare and tuition was so fucking laughable, not least of which because those college students would blame everything on President Bernie.

 

[Wilsongt]

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team asked the Department of Homeland Security for documents relating to the biographic information of some undocumented immigrants, Reuters reported Tuesday.

The publication’s report found that Trump’s team requested copies of every executive order and directive relating to immigration in December, a request that would likely include a 2012 executive action known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative which granted temporary deportation protection and work authorization.

According to Reuters, the transition team “asked whether federal workers have altered biographic information kept by the department about immigrants out of concern for their civil liberties,” which DHS officials took to mean that Trump’s team wanted to make sure that they didn’t tamper with DACA records.

Well.

 

[Crocodile]

Those same people would not have complained had George Clooney been raising that money for Bernie, because Bernie got the trust of the anti-wallstreet young base where as Clinton did not. Like I said before it isn't always logical why people favor a certain candidate or don't, but getting on people's good side and having faith that they will represent you is a political skill and gives you more capitol and room to do things they may not like but might be necessary.

But even then, Trump won the Presidency without much of any financial support at all and is the first candidate to win raising less money in like forever. So I think money is going to be less important especially how easily information is spread now and that how anyone can look up anything online and on social media for free.

And again people went that way and thought things because Bernie was saying them. Maybe they follow a different narrative for a different candidate in the future. But gaining the trust of the youth who literally has nothing and no future right now is a massive priority.

My overall point is "give them what they want" makes sense if what they want is good. As I said before, I have zero qualms with Ellison for DNC Chair, that seems like a good thing so there is no issue here "giving them what they want". It's just adopting a blanket "give them what they want" approach can go south very fast so I don't want to do that - not all the things the far left "want" are good or things they should get.

Well.

I don't see how going after children/high school students/college students who aren't hurting anyone or anything plays well with anyone who isn't a raging asshole

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well.

I have it on good authority Hillary would have been just as bad.

I mean, come on. Emails.

 

[chadskin]

I have it on good authority Hillary would have been just as bad.

I mean, come on. Emails.

Let me tell you about Comet Ping Pong ...

 

[Got the Shakes]

According to Fox, Goerge W. and Laura Bush also attending the inauguration.

 

[studyguy]

According to Fox, Goerge W.and Laura Bush also attending the inauguration.

SOMEONE CALL JEB AND ASK IF HE'S OK!

 

[BoosterDuck]

According to Fox, Goerge W.and Laura Bush also attending the inauguration.

after all that shit talking too, man what a joke

 

[The Technomancer]

So I moved down to Chicago just weeks after the election and hadn't bothered to look up who my new rep was

Well he...seems pretty good

Anyone know anything about Quigley?

 

[DrForester]

Nice little slap in the face to everyone who believed in her by attending the Oompa Loompa's inauguration.

 

[kirblar]

Nice little slap in the face to everyone who believed in her by attending the Oompa Loompa's inauguration.

You do realize her husband is a former president, no?

Not attending would have been the far worse option here.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yeah, it'd be terrible if she deligitimized him.

 

[DrForester]

You do realize her husband is a former president, no?

Not attending would have been the far worse option here.

I see no reason to attend the inauguration of white nationalism. Could have made a statement by not going.

 

[studyguy]

Obama is going, Bush is going, Clinton is going, would wager Bush senior would attend too if he wasn't so up there in years. I mean presidents and their wives attend inaugurations fam.

If you want to get up in arms over it then I don't really know what to tell you.








Also Dabs4Poltics are already lit in 2017
https://twitter.com/cspanJeremy/status/816390029455065089

 

[sphagnum]

You do realize her husband is a former president, no?

Not attending would have been the far worse option here.

Why? It's not like she's running again.

Make him a pariah.

 

[kirblar]

She doesn't make a statement by not going, she only looks petty and like a sore loser.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

While I disagreed with the strategy of separating Trump from the GOP, I don't believe it was a bad strategy in of itself. The problem was that we had the wrong messenger for that type of strategy. The crux of the argument rests on republicans and republican-leaners being somewhat comfortable with voting for the democrat, or being shamed/suppressed into staying home. That works if your nominee is someone like Obama in 08 (not 2012), or maybe Bill Clinton in 92. Not when you have a candidate republicans have hated for decades, who isn't a good politician etc.

Uh, my state was Virginia. In a 50/50 county.

And this is not just my anecdote, we have tons of complaints coming out post-election from state/local officials who had zero contact from the Clinton campaign. It was a huge, huge issue that was one of the marginal factors that ultimately led to the tiny loss.

If you are thinking of this like a sports game, you've already lost the plot because you aren't thinking about it correctly. What matters is getting you to that marginal +1 vote. The rest isn't relevant.
-
Perez shouldn't be getting anywhere close to a win. If he is, something is very wrong.

edit: And this is an example of why-

I'm confused. You don't like Perez and dislike Obama loyalists, claiming they aren't well organized I assume...and your example...is the fact that the DNC is involving Clinton members in an anti-Trump war room? Clinton people are going to be involved in a lot of things. She was the last nominee. But they won't be in major leadership positions and will little control.

 

[kirblar]

I'm confused. You don't like Perez and dislike Obama loyalists, claiming they aren't well organized I assume...and your example...is the fact that the DNC is involving Clinton members in an anti-Trump war room?

The strategy of separating Trump from the GOP completely backfired. Slate had a piece about a month back on focus groups they did post-election where this was the takeaway in big flashing giant letters. So if you were involved in the Clinton team's messaging re: Trump, I do not trust you on getting it right. It's the same reason I don't trust Obama to get anything right regarding party management - he's got 8 solid years of screwing that up to tell me that it's better to ignore his preferences there.

I don't have any issue with Perez personally, I think he's been put up to this by a faction that's fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons.

 

[Kusagari]

After the disaster of Debbie I don't want Obama or his people anywhere near having control of the DNC.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

After the disaster of Debbie I don't want Obama or his people anywhere near having control of the DNC.

From what I've seen, Obama didn't want DWS there years ago but couldn't get to leave.

 

[kirblar]

From what I've seen, Obama didn't want DWS there years ago but couldn't get to leave.

Obama was going to have to actually expend capital to remove her (she was going to acuse him of being sexist/anti-Semitic/etc) and let her stay rather than doing anything about it, because he didn't really care about the DNC because he was shunting resources to his PAC.

IF you search up "Obama OFA DNC" in google btw, you'll see this stuff dates back to '10/'12 - it was an issue long before this cycle.

 

[VendettaRed07]

From what I've seen, Obama didn't want DWS there years ago but couldn't get to leave.

Why couldn't he? It's embarrassingly sad if this was actually true.

He's the fucking POTUS. On what planet should someone like DWS be able to hijack the party?

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

If we're finding new dumb reasons to be mad at Hillary, it must be Tuesday.

 

[kirblar]

Why couldn't he? It's embarrassingly sad if this was actually true.

He's the fucking POTUS. On what planet should someone like DWS be able to hijack the party?

She didn't hijack the party. The "DNC" never had an iota of the control that the "Sanders was Robbed" narrative thinks it did. Obama viewed the DNC as an appendix, and was end-running around them every chance he could. That was where the problems ultimately stemmed from. Rather than invest in the party, he created his own "DNC", and it failed spectacularly.

 

[whyamihere]

Now that Lisa Blunt Rochester has been sworn in, only Vermont and Mississippi have never elected a woman to Congress.

 

[Kusagari]

She didn't hijack the party. The "DNC" never had an iota of the control that the "Sanders was Robbed" narrative thinks it did. Obama viewed the DNC as an appendix, and was end-running around them every chance he could. That was where the problems ultimately stemmed from. Rather than invest in the party, he created his own "DNC", and it failed spectacularly.

And this is the real problem with Obama's ultimate legacy.

He basically built up a coalition completely dependent on his own personality and charisma, while shunning building up the standard party apparatus, and seemed to just assume that coalition would show up for candidates that were not him.

Obviously that didn't work.

 

[kirblar]

And this is the real problem with Obama's ultimate legacy.

He basically built up a coalition completely dependent on his own personality and charisma, while shunning building up the standard party apparatus, and seemed to just assume that coalition would show up for candidates that were not him.

Obviously that didn't work.

Bingo.

 

[Suikoguy]

And this is the real problem with Obama's ultimate legacy.

He basically built up a coalition completely dependent on his own personality and charisma, while shunning building up the standard party apparatus, and seemed to just assume that coalition would show up for candidates that were not him.

Obviously that didn't work.

Damn that sounds familiar...

 

[studyguy]

lmao

 

[Cesare Borgia]

The strategy of separating Trump from the GOP completely backfired. Slate had a piece about a month back on focus groups they did post-election where this was the takeaway in big flashing giant letters. So if you were involved in the Clinton team's messaging re: Trump, I do not trust you on getting it right. It's the same reason I don't trust Obama to get anything right regarding party management - he's got 8 solid years of screwing that up to tell me that it's better to ignore his preferences there.

I don't have any issue with Perez personally, I think he's been put up to this by a faction that's fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons.

Like I said, I disagree with the strategy. I thought it was interesting that Clinton's camp had more popular figures (Obama, Bill, Michelle) make that argument, whereas I didn't hear Hillary herself make it much. It's similar to what the Obama campaign did in 2012 when they rolled out Bill Clinton to argue House republicans were more extreme than anything that came before. All that being said, that isn't what cost her the win. It's not even in the top 3 IMO.

In terms of Obama political management over the last few years (elections) again, I'm confused. 2010 was inevitable. We've discussed this many times but the idea that "50 state strategies" were going to save democrats is laughable. The economy, racial animosity, Obamacare fear, etc destroyed southern democrats. I don't care who the DNC chair is, that wasn't going to be stopped.

2012...republicans lost 8 seats. Dems lost about 12 seats in 2014 but it largely went how you'd expect a midterm to go for the party in the WH.

I don't think Perez or Ellison are some amazing talents who will Change Everything. Both would do a good job. Both will likely receive too much praise when democrats win more seats in 2018.

 

[kirblar]

Like I said, I disagree with the strategy. I thought it was interesting that Clinton's camp had more popular figures (Obama, Bill, Michelle) make that argument, whereas I didn't hear Hillary herself make it much. It's similar to what the Obama campaign did in 2012 when they rolled out Bill Clinton to argue House republicans were more extreme than anything that came before. All that being said, that isn't what cost her the win. It's not even in the top 3 IMO.

In terms of Obama political management over the last few years (elections) again, I'm confused. 2010 was inevitable. We've discussed this many times but the idea that "50 state strategies" were going to save democrats is laughable. The economy, racial animosity, Obamacare fear, etc destroyed southern democrats. I don't care who the DNC chair is, that wasn't going to be stopped.

2012...republicans lost 8 seats. Dems lost about 12 seats in 2014 but it largely went how you'd expect a midterm to go for the party in the WH.

I don't think Perez or Ellison are some amazing talents who will Change Everything. Both would do a good job. Both will likely receive too much praise when democrats win more seats in 2018.

I don't think Ellison is some messiah or anything either. It's that we have a serious crisis at the state level that Iin large part comes as a result of Obama dismantling the 50-state strategy. That crisis doesn't have to do with national year to year election trends.

Obama and Sanders both tried to go top->down. It doesn't work.