• 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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevinroc

Member
Andy Slavitt wrote a pretty good twitter thread to discuss the AHCA.

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/872239594577833984

HOT TAKE: So what happened today with the Senate on Trumpcare leads me to believe it could go exactly like the House-- secretive & fast.

I've now had 7 various conversations & here is what appears to be happening with Trumpcare. Starting with the biggest news... 1

If McConnell has his way, the public will only have two days to read the bill, with a day to debate & a vote 6/28. 2

This is gonna be a long one so bear with me. A lot happening. 2a

That means no hearings, a CBO score, no chance for public debate & little time to read language. CBO score, perfunctory debate & vote.3

McConnell had a small mtg, then the full R caucus, then a recap meeting. Then a Trump meeting. They put the PR machine on full blast.4

They downplay prospects while folks are home last week to minimize pressure. Blare up inevitability now & probably for Trump's benefit. 5

Opened the mtg with "we cannot fail"-- a different tone. Said ACA will fail (most know due to Trump sabotage) so they have to act... 6

Had a thin .ppt presentation. A "feel good" package. Longer slope on ending Medicaid expansion. Adjustments to pre-ex. More $ 4 tax creds.7

It was like adding ketchup to rotten food. Still Medicaid caps, still end expansion, still ⬆️ prems. Still all 2 fund a massive tax cut. 8

Some seemed to buy hook, line & sinker or were encouraged to spin positively. No, Senators, Jimmy Kimmel would have vomited. 9

To be clear, "feel good" is to make them feel good, not you. E.g., improve pre-ex, but allow services not to be covered.

Feel good yet?9a

Idea is 2 have CBO review in pieces-- that's started. But have it in by the end of the weekend. They have to fill holes & make decisions.10

And then use June to "buy" the incremental votes they need. Most ppl. think it will pass w 50 & there are 43 in now. 11

So expect attempts to buy Murkowski w an Alaska goodie, opioid $ for dift Senators & other pet issues. Doing this while keeping Cruz/Lee. 12

Now for the good part.

What can be done. 13

No 1: Demand to see the damn bill.

There needs to be a #showusthebill campaign. More it sees the light of day, quicker it fails. 14

No 2: Do NOT get bought off.

If your issue is opioids & it slightly improves, remember hundred of billions of care goes away 4 millions.15

No. 3: Don't let your Senator get bought cheap.

From my yrs running the programs & the private sector, ppl cannot survive these cuts.16

No. 4: Don't buy the window dressing.

And with no time to review actual language & before a CBO score, it's all window dressing.17

No. 5: If they stumble, they fall.

They have no time to spare and if they miss by a few days, they are home 4 recess. 18

No. 6: Follow @TopherSpiro, @IndivisibleTeam 4 latest on applying pressure to the Senate. One more hard no early will change the course.19

That's it. Back to work.
 

Maengun1

Member
As someone who is fully insured through the ACA right now, this constant cycle of "LOL THE BILL IS DEAD" -> "oh shit it's happening" -> LOL THE BILL IS DEAD" -> "oh shit it's happening" is really.......stressful right now. I mean I don't even have any current health issues to speak of and still. I hate these fuckers so much.

I have two dem senators so not much personal lobbying to do.
 
DBse3k7XoAIM1N9.jpg

.
 
As someone who is fully insured through the ACA right now, this constant cycle of "LOL THE BILL IS DEAD" -> "oh shit it's happening" -> LOL THE BILL IS DEAD" -> "oh shit it's happening" is really.......stressful right now. I mean I don't even have any current health issues to speak of and still. I hate these fuckers so much.

I have two dem senators so not much personal lobbying to do.

If the bill ever becomes law, 2010 will look like a victory for Democrats compared to what the Republicans will witness within 2 years of it being implemented. We're talking a 50% swing of seats across the House and Senate if the AHCA passes. If you want a Democratic Supermajority in the House and Senate, the AHCA is the best opportunity for that...
 
If the bill ever becomes law, 2010 will look like a victory for Democrats compared to what the Republicans will witness within 2 years of it being implemented. We're talking a 50% swing of seats across the House and Senate if the AHCA passes. If you want a Democratic Supermajority in the House and Senate, the AHCA is the best opportunity for that...

That's not very comforting for someone who might lose their health insurance!
 
You realize that when they repeal Obamacare they are already putting the genie back in the bottle

right

When peoples premiums go up even further and millions more are without insurance any complaints people had of Obamacare will become fond memories--"remember when we all had insurance and it actually covered stuff?" It's going to blow up in their faces more than I think they imagine. If they go through with this it's going to get to the point where Democrats could put Scarecrows with signs that say "Where's your healthcare?" around their necks on the ticket and win some seats. Lower income families--the ones that benefit from the ACA--are the ones that are going to be hit the hardest, and they are not going to take too kindly to Trumpcare. They're going to "win" by repealing the Black Presidents health insurance plan, and then lose the entire federal government because doing so will galvanize the Democratic base literally everywhere.

While the ACA is a step towards Single Payer, it's still quite far away. I think if CA gets their system up and running well it will change a lot of peoples minds.
 
2-3 years of suffering until President Booker with Dem supermajority will sign single payer into law in 2021.

I was thinking President Al Franken with Vice President Kirsten Gillibrand at his side. But to each their own. It could be President Mark Warner or Kamala Harris for all I care.

Edit: Also fuck Eric Trump. Trump managed to spawn filth that's actually worse than him.

6 Months ago: How can they call some of us deplorables??? That's so mean!

Last Night: Democrats aren't even people.
 
I have been out of the loop for two days. What is this I am hearing about the senate forcing healthcare through. I will gladly read it all my own if anyone has a good direct source.
 

Holmes

Member
How did the GA debate go today?
And DeKalb being a much higher percentage of the early vote than Cobb is...?

When the Montana mail-in votes were coming in, we all knew it was bad news for Quist when Gianforte's 2016 counties were coming in at larger numbers than Bullock's counties, especially Yellowstone. Missoula in particular had lower turnout than the state as a whole. So you can't say Cobb's low turnout and DeKalb's high turnout so far is bad for Ossoff unless you only want to panic.
 
Andy Slavitt wrote a pretty good twitter thread to discuss the AHCA.

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/872239594577833984
I feel sick.I had convinced myself the Senate/McConnell wouldn't be this insane/reckless. What suddenly changed to convince them pushing through this trainwreck now is a good idea, for anyone? Ugh. I'm health atm, but my insurance is gone if this passes. Fuck everything these idiots stand for. God damnit, why couldn't we have regained the Senate at the very least last year...
 
Actually Shinra is right. If this bill that was supposedly DOA just a week ago really is still DOA and it was just fearmongering in this thread that raised my blood pressure, I'm going to be pissed off.
 
Comparison to 2016 EV wether Trump won by one point in EV.

Ugh, no. This is incorrect.

The EV is slightly younger, slightly more diverse, more non-traditional voters than in round 1 with spikes in Asian voters.

DBrmjOoXoAAbc0Y.jpg


It's going to be close, and literally is what the race always was -- a coin flip. You don't need to make things up to take everyone who isn't paying attention to the numbers down to whatever nihilistic sewer you enjoy self-flagellating yourself in.
 
Black turnout in EV is far below where it should be

round 1

F59PB5P.png


It was already lower than predicted. It doesn't need to be at 2016 levels -- it just needs to be at better-than-round-1. Where Ossoff got 48% of the vote. And, again, Michael McDonald is working off of an older voter file, so take that data with a grain of salt.

Like, honestly, do you enjoy doing this to yourself?

Not to mention this phenomena

@ForecasterEnten
So if we break down the GA-6 polls by month... 2 things are apparent. 1. Number of undecideds dropping. 2. Small, but consistent Ossoff lead

DBRTYesXoAE3zad.jpg

And DeKalb being a much higher percentage of the early vote than Cobb is...?

When the Montana mail-in votes were coming in, we all knew it was bad news for Quist when Gianforte's 2016 counties were coming in at larger numbers than Bullock's counties, especially Yellowstone. Missoula in particular had lower turnout than the state as a whole. So you can't say Cobb's low turnout and DeKalb's high turnout so far is bad for Ossoff unless you only want to panic.

It's almost like... that's what he wants to do!
 
I didn't know Michael was working with an older voter file.

They point remains that Dems are still having a a tougher time turning out black voters and that makes retaking house tougher.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
New Jersey democrats just nominated a uber rich self described "elite" who spent 23 years in Goldman Sachs leadership to be their nominee, having the endorsement of Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and Bob Menendez and outspending the rest of his opponents combined $22 million to $5 million.

Democrats keep saying economic populism is the future of the party, and then turn around and push for candidates with the only determination being who can raise the most money. It's frustrating.

And the primary mechanics is probably screwing democrats more than republicans in an atmosphere where the center is basically extinct. Republicans as a whole are fine with big money influence and the older and richer primary base represents their constituency pretty well. They'll turn out for absolutely anyone anyway, and don't have to worry about courting new voters until demographic changes hit critical mass.

On the other hand, outsized big money influence and older/richer primary voters are going lead to exactly the type of candidate that turns off the type of people democrats need but have a hard time getting to vote.
 

Tommy DJ

Member
It's New Jersey. Not saying it doesn't suck for you guys but how many corrupt politicians have they elected? Even I know that New Jersey doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation with regards to financial honesty.
 
New Jersey democrats just nominated a uber rich self described "elite" who spent 23 years in Goldman Sachs leadership to be their nominee, having the endorsement of Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and Bob Menendez and outspending the rest of his opponents combined $22 million to $5 million.

Democrats keep saying economic populism is the future of the party, and then turn around and push for candidates with the only determination being who can raise the most money. It's frustrating.

And the primary mechanics is probably screwing democrats more than republicans in an atmosphere where the center is basically extinct. Republicans as a whole are fine with big money influence and the older and richer primary base represents their constituency pretty well. They'll turn out for absolutely anyone anyway, and don't have to worry about courting new voters until demographic changes hit critical mass.

On the other hand, outsized big money influence and older/richer primary voters are going lead to exactly the type of candidate that turns off the type of people democrats need but have a hard time getting to vote.

I would say that the mechanics of a New Jersey primary have more to do with this than anything else. It's really hard to be an insurgent.

I didn't know Michael was working with an older voter file.

They point remains that Dems are still having a a tougher time turning out black voters and that makes retaking house tougher.

You post these things with authority without asking questions and you end up confusing people who aren't paying attention to the data. It's continuously frustrating and it keeps happening.

I'm not making a call either way on GA-6, but compared to round 1, this is what I'd expect.
 
New Jersey democrats just nominated a uber rich self described "elite" who spent 23 years in Goldman Sachs leadership to be their nominee, having the endorsement of Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and Bob Menendez and outspending the rest of his opponents combined $22 million to $5 million.

Democrats keep saying economic populism is the future of the party, and then turn around and push for candidates with the only determination being who can raise the most money. It's frustrating.

And the primary mechanics is probably screwing democrats more than republicans in an atmosphere where the center is basically extinct. Republicans as a whole are fine with big money influence and the older and richer primary base represents their constituency pretty well. They'll turn out for absolutely anyone anyway, and don't have to worry about courting new voters until demographic changes hit critical mass.

On the other hand, outsized big money influence and older/richer primary voters are going lead to exactly the type of candidate that turns off the type of people democrats need but have a hard time getting to vote.
And for all that even Murphy's primary opponents couldn't find a good way to attack his policy positions from the left as even the Sanders candidate pretty much has the same positions as him. Murphy is going to win the governorship with ease, he's not going to turn off NJ voters.
 
New Jersey democrats just nominated a uber rich self described "elite" who spent 23 years in Goldman Sachs leadership to be their nominee, having the endorsement of Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and Bob Menendez and outspending the rest of his opponents combined $22 million to $5 million.

Democrats keep saying economic populism is the future of the party, and then turn around and push for candidates with the only determination being who can raise the most money. It's frustrating.

And the primary mechanics is probably screwing democrats more than republicans in an atmosphere where the center is basically extinct. Republicans as a whole are fine with big money influence and the older and richer primary base represents their constituency pretty well. They'll turn out for absolutely anyone anyway, and don't have to worry about courting new voters until demographic changes hit critical mass.

On the other hand, outsized big money influence and older/richer primary voters are going lead to exactly the type of candidate that turns off the type of people democrats need but have a hard time getting to vote.

He ran a very progressive campaign. Dems need to get over the idea they wall street can't have progressive folks.

He was endorsed by someone on Bernie side too I believe.
 
Qatar must have done something godawful behind the scenes to have this thrown at them. With the fake story thing out in the open there has to be some other justification to escalate things. Who there specifically is worth weakening? What's there to gain by knocking them down? I'm not even sure what Russia is gaining by shoving their nose in. A more united front in that area against Iran is not in their interests.

Trump is completely screwed on this. He can either side with the Saudis--what the obvious choice would be--But there's that massive airbase we can't afford to just give up or abandon. Is this just a Saudi power play? I mean, say they want to invade (under unknown lazy justification). Who's going to stop them? This has trainwreck written all over it, with plenty of opportunities but very little understanding of motive.
 

ascii42

Member
Alright it was a shitty post that I didn't really think about before I made, I'll admit that.

But tbf rooting for the piss tape is also rooting for some underage girl to have had to endure Trump pissing on her face against her will. Also has deeper implications worth considering.

Per the document, the piss tape is girls peeing on the bed that Obama had slept in, presumably while Trump watched. There was nothing about Trump peeing, or getting peed on.
 
Per the document, the piss tape is girls peeing on the bed that Obama had slept in, presumably while Trump watched. There was nothing about Trump peeing, or getting peed on.

Wait, what?

*googles*

Oh, so it is. Huh. Well that's what I get for never actually researching it and just going off what I read here when the dossier first leaked.

That's like really comparatively bland though. That's like, barely scandalous for anyone but evangelicals, and even then you'd probably get a ton playing the "well now he's reborn in Christ" card.

Like, I kind of believe in it less now, too. I mean I could see Donald Trump being a pedophilic pervert who abuses his power and money nigh-psychopathically. But paying a bunch of hookers to pee on a bed because the Obamas slept there? That seems both too creative and requiring off too much energy for him.
 

kirblar

Member
New Jersey democrats just nominated a uber rich self described "elite" who spent 23 years in Goldman Sachs leadership to be their nominee, having the endorsement of Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and Bob Menendez and outspending the rest of his opponents combined $22 million to $5 million.

Democrats keep saying economic populism is the future of the party, and then turn around and push for candidates with the only determination being who can raise the most money. It's frustrating.

And the primary mechanics is probably screwing democrats more than republicans in an atmosphere where the center is basically extinct. Republicans as a whole are fine with big money influence and the older and richer primary base represents their constituency pretty well. They'll turn out for absolutely anyone anyway, and don't have to worry about courting new voters until demographic changes hit critical mass.

On the other hand, outsized big money influence and older/richer primary voters are going lead to exactly the type of candidate that turns off the type of people democrats need but have a hard time getting to vote.
Those aren't the same groups of Dems.

The ones attracted to populism as a tactic aren't going to be living in New Jersey, for the most part.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I would say that the mechanics of a New Jersey primary have more to do with this than anything else. It's really hard to be an insurgent.

I've been getting some of the ads since I'm in a close media market and Murphy's major competition looked more like he was running the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign than his own bid for governor. Seriously, they were like half Bernie speaking, then a voice over with the candidate sitting in a room with kids saying nothing. If you were just flipping through you couldn't tell the NJ presidential primary was over.

Yea it's hard to run as an insurgent, but when your own positive ads don't feature you prominently, that's a problem.
 

ascii42

Member
Wait, what?

*googles*

Oh, so it is. Huh. Well that's what I get for never actually researching it and just going off what I read here when the dossier first leaked.

That's like really comparatively bland though. That's like, barely scandalous for anyone but evangelicals, and even then you'd probably get a ton playing the "well now he's reborn in Christ" card.

Like, I kind of believe in it less now, too. I mean I could see Donald Trump being a pedophilic pervert who abuses his power and money nigh-psychopathically. But paying a bunch of hookers to pee on a bed because the Obamas slept there? That seems both too creative and requiring off too much energy for him.

It's only a matter of how petty you can believe that Trump is.
 

Blader

Member
Are Democrats doing much worse with black voters than they were pre-Obama?

Like, I keep seeing this and last year about the drops in black turnout, but I don't know if this is a regression to the pre-Obama mean or a net negative compared to even that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom