• 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 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Bi-partisanship is dead.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/rooting-for-failure/



--




KDK2017033001-table1.png
Click to expand...

Why should the Democrats or Republicans work with the other side to pass harmful bipartisan legislation? The AHCA is fundamentally flawed just like the ACA. Good laws passed unilaterally or in a bipartisan fashion are what most people ought to care about. Elites and others that are out of touch can work unconditionally with the other side to influence fundamentally flawed proposals.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
It's the Catch 22 they're in. Can't win moderates with a far right bill, can't win the far right FC with a moderate bill. And there's no in-between because the FC demands full repeal.

CNBC had a disputed article yesterday that claimed republicans plan on bringing the AHCA (or another bill) up for vote again soon. The same shit is going to happen again, IF that report is accurate.
Click to expand...

In a bygone era, this would have led to a moderate bipartisan solution. But the GOP cannot and will not attempt to get Dems on board with anything, and more Dems are aping the GOP's "vote no on anything" stance.
 
S

SpaceCadetKeon

Banned
I am firmly in the "filibuster Gorsuch" camp. He and any future nominees will get confirmed anyway, so may as well force the Republicans to pull the trigger.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
jtb said:
There's a difference between saying that votes have minimal worth or are unfairly/disproportionately distributed and weighted between states, which is true and makes sense, and saying that votes, unless they are the solitary decisive tipping point vote, are completely meaningless.

Voting because the benefit of having 1/100,000 influence on your state/city/etc.'s policies outweighs the cost of voting (i.e. time, postage, whatever) is rational. So obviously, we should decrease the "cost" of voting.

But the idea that there is inherently no rational benefit to voting unless the vote is decisive seems to be taking that idea to an extreme that no one actually believes, because elections are cumulative and votes are non-sequential and unsorted.

Anyways, I agree with you about encouraging voter turnout through reducing costs. I just didn't (and kinda still don't) get the whole logic/rationality argument you're proposing.
Click to expand...

It's actually the standard economic analysis of voting. Anybody doing an economics major has probably heard it.

The cost benefit analysis of voting is that it costs whatever it costs you in time and energy and lost wages, and the benefit is the policy changes you desire divided by the probability that your vote causes those policy changes to happen.

Since the odds that your vote will by itself cause policy changes are basically zero, the benefit of voting is basically zero, so unless it's literally free to vote, the transactional cost means that a perfectly rational person will determine that it's not worth voting and stay home.

Obviously people vote anyway, though, which really should've been a pretty early sign that bounded rationality was correct. I think an economist would probably argue that they get an intangible benefit from civic duty and participation.
 
J

jtb

Banned
pigeon said:
It's actually the standard economic analysis of voting. Anybody doing an economics major has probably heard it.

The cost benefit analysis of voting is that it costs whatever it costs you in time and energy and lost wages, and the benefit is the policy changes you desire divided by the probability that your vote causes those policy changes to happen.

Since the odds that your vote will by itself cause policy changes are basically zero, the benefit of voting is basically zero, so unless it's literally free to vote, the transactional cost means that a perfectly rational person will determine that it's not worth voting and stay home.

Obviously people vote anyway, though, which really should've been a pretty early sign that bounded rationality was correct. I think an economist would probably argue that they get an intangible benefit from civic duty and participation.
Click to expand...

I understand that, I guess I'm making the (admittedly pedantic) point that "basically zero" is not the same as actually zero, which implies that if voting is literally free, it would still only be a break even proposition. (Plus, we see close elections all the time, local elections, midterms, etc. etc.)
 
P

pigeon

Banned
smokeymicpot said:
Seriously her leaving the white house means nothing they are taking her away to lead a Trump group.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. It matters that Priebus is losing allies in the White House. Obviously being a Republican operator she's going to get moved to another sinecure rather than fired, but being in the White House is actually meaningfully different than not.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Plinko said:
This is gigantic news, no?
Click to expand...

Reading between the lines, it also means that there are people in the WH willing to say what they know on the topic. Meaning that the loyalty there is dead.

Even if nothing directly comes from the Nunes stuff, the holes in the WH that this reveals means that much more will be forthcoming.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
These people are awful at coverups.

Should be proof for conspiracy theorists that massive coverups are not really feasible. But of course they're insane so they won't think about it.
 
T

tmarg

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
In a bygone era, this would have led to a moderate bipartisan solution. But the GOP cannot and will not attempt to get Dems on board with anything, and more Dems are aping the GOP's "vote no on anything" stance.
Click to expand...

Democrats have the bill they want in the ACA. Why would they join a bipartisan effort to repeal it?

It may not be perfect, but it's significantly better than anything they'll get by working with the Republicans.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
tmarg said:
Democrats have the bill they want in the ACA. Why would they join a bipartisan effort to repeal it?

It may not be perfect, but it's significantly better than anything they'll get by working with the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Unless the Republicans modified their aims with the bill and told the FC to fuck off.

If the Dems could get something they wanted, they might give up other things. That's how Congress worked for decades, before the 1990s.
 
B

Barzul

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Unless the Republicans modified their aims with the bill and told the FC to fuck off.

If the Dems could get something they wanted, they might give up other things. That's how Congress worked for decades, before the 1990s.
Click to expand...

I don't know what it was about the Clinton's that just riled people on the right up, but that is when politics in this country really just went to shit.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Hindl said:
It was inevitable. May as well blow it up as soon as possible rather than compromise to keep it in place, only for it to be nuked later anyway
Click to expand...

yeah, what did the gang of 14 get us? far-right justices and nothing else. GOP still refused a vote on Garland. so fuck it
 
T

tmarg

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Unless the Republicans modified their aims with the bill and told the FC to fuck off.

If the Dems could get something they wanted, they might give up other things. That's how Congress worked for decades, before the 1990s.
Click to expand...

There is no legitimate Republican plan. You can't even say what the Democrats might get, because it's absurd on its face.
 
S

Surfinn

Member
Spicer: "I'm going to let the tweet speak for itself"

Spicer, on Trumps's Obama accusation via tweet: "Let me explain that to you."
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Barzul said:
I don't know what it was about the Clinton's that just riled people on the right up, but that is when politics in this country really just went to shit.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the Clintons specifically. It was the migration of the Dixcrats to the GOP finally taking hold, and Newt G deciding he could leverage the numbers since the GOP had the House for the first time in decades.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
tmarg said:
There is no legitimate Republican plan. You can't even say what the Democrats might get, because it's absurd on its face.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.

At one time, there would have been.

What you call absurd on its face it how government *used to work.*

It's only absurd because the norms have changed, which was my point.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Government worked that way because Democratic congressional majorities were full of Dixiecrats and conservatives that could easily work with Republican Presidents (and had a large incentive to do so in many cases).
 
K

kirblar

Member
Basileus777 said:
Government worked that way because Democratic congressional majorities were full of Dixiecrats and conservatives that could easily work with Republican Presidents (and had a large incentive to do so in many cases).
Click to expand...
/|\

We are living in the end result of the Southern Strategy.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Basileus777 said:
Government worked that way because Democratic congressional majorities were full of Dixiecrats and conservatives that could easily work with Republican Presidents (and had a large incentive to do so in many cases).
Click to expand...

Conservatives were also divided between small-government types, bible-belt types, and hawks. Coalitions formed across the parties. They still could, if the division hadn't grown so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
62K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
3K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
4K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom