Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think the expectation was that she would have a GOP house and senate.

With her polling numbers, it should have been.

 

[NoName999]

Amazing that Trump wants a dysfunctional Congress to take up tax reform and some kind of DACA fix, when we needed a Harvey relief package like yesterday and there’s three weeks left to both keep the government running and avoid default.

And don't get Category 4 Hurricane Irma

 

[VendettaRed07]

By "it wasn't easy to get her there" you mean "she supported since at least the 90s"

She didn't support single payer or a public option in the primary.

All she campaigned on was prescription drug cost management and other moderate changes to the ACA before the convention.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

With her polling numbers, it should have been.

There were consistent periods where her polling was showing a large Dem wave. Let's not pretend like her polling was what it was in the last week, for the entire race.

She didn't support single payer or a public option in the primary.

All she campaigned on was prescription drug cost management and other moderate changes to the ACA before the convention.

She had a public option on her website since she started running.

 

[jtb]

With her polling numbers, it should have been.

For the majority of the campaign, Dems were expected to retake the Senate. Feingold broke late, and PA was always going to go the same way as the top of the ticket

There were consistent periods where he polling was showing a large Dem wave. Let's not pretend like her polling was what it was in the last week, for the entire race.

this too. election results after Access Hollywood vs. Comey letter, etc. etc. would be very different

like I said, it's all rather meaningless at this point

 

[Deleted member 231381]

For the majority of the campaign, Dems were expected to retake the Senate. Feingold broke late, and PA was always going to go the same way as the top of the ticket

You know as well as I do this would be irrelevant. As a sitting President, Clinton would have promptly lost the Senate in 2018, which means House Republicans would have had enormous incentive to delay and obstruct absolutely everything until that date. If you think there's a chance Clinton could have passed any of her healthcare commitments in that time, you're nuts.

And it's not meaningless, it's actually quite important. No politician promises what they definitely can achieve, because to quote Macmillan, there always 'events, dear boy, events'. Here we are debating over how the political arena will change or vary, which actors will gain or lose vetoes, whether public opinion will turn this way or that. Anyone promising 'I shall do this', and meaning they are literally 100% promising it will come to pass, isn't some wise policy wonk, they're a fool or a huckster.

What politicians promise is what they'd like to achieve in the ideal world. And that's still incredibly important information, since if you know where someone is going, you usually know where they'll stop in the face of obstacles. If I know you want to reach the top of the ladder, I can have a pretty good guess you'll have a go at a few of the rungs if all else fails. At the top of Clinton's ladder was timidity and acceptance of a broken system. But instead of her owning up to that, she's telling you that no, it wasn't timid, she had the same dreams as Sanders all along, hers were just 100% definitely doable. As I said - a fool or a huckster, your choice.

The next Democratic nominee needs to learn from that. Tell people your goal, your homeland, your dreams.

 

[tbm24]

You know as well as I do this would be irrelevant. As a sitting President, Clinton would have promptly lost the Senate in 2018, which means House Republicans would have had enormous incentive to delay and obstruct absolutely everything until that date. If you think there's a chance Clinton could have passed any of her healthcare commitments in that time, you're nuts.

What do you do then if you want to govern with a group who will take every opportunity to shit on you for trying when you need said group to actually get anything substantial done?

 

[Crocodile]

I also find it amusing how Clinton's lukewarm package is sold as 'she could feasibly pass hers, Bernie's is just unrealistic!'. Go read Clinton's policy commitments, then consider what a lame-duck Clinton could pass in the face of a Republican House and Senate. She wasn't going to able to achieve even a quarter of her campaign issues, if that. Both of them were setting out what they would ideally do, rather than what political constraints would necessarily allow for - and the fact she won't own up to that just smacks of hypocrisy.

This seems a bit of an "interesting take" in the context of a GOP Congress that has made promises for years that its now clear they can't keep because the votes aren't there. You don't think there is any value in not over-promising? That's certainly a concern of mine moving forward for the Democrats. Speaking of the Dem primary, do you not think its true that there are/were likely fewer votes in any future House or Senate for say full on single-payer than a public option (one example)? Is your suggestion that "If its impossible for me to pass any legislation I should just promise the moon" is the best campaign tactic to take? I just want to be clear on what you mean.

 

[Pixieking]

You know as well as I do this would be irrelevant. As a sitting President, Clinton would have promptly lost the Senate in 2018, which means House Republicans would have had enormous incentive to delay and obstruct absolutely everything until that date. If you think there's a chance Clinton could have passed any of her healthcare commitments in that time, you're nuts.

Quoting myself:

Pretend Bernie actually won instead of Trump, but all else remains the same - same minority with representatives and senators. Do you think the GOP wouldn't have obstructed Bernie because he was "a commie"? Honestly?

Now replace "all else remains the same" with your argument that they win the senate in '16, but were bound to lose it in '18.

I cannot see why the GOP wouldn't obstruct a commie (sorry, "socialist") any less than Hillary. Maybe they would've been more amenable to Bernie, but... ehhhhh.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This seems a bit of an "interesting take" in the context of a GOP Congress that has made promises for years that its now clear they can't keep because the votes aren't there. You don't think there is any value in not over-promising? That's certainly a concern of mine moving forward for the Democrats. Speaking of the Dem primary, do you not think its true that there are/were likely fewer votes in any future House or Senate for say full on single-payer than a public option (one example)? Is your suggestion that "If its impossible for me to pass any legislation I should just promise the moon" is the best campaign tactic to take? I just want to be clear on what you mean.

If there is value in not "over-promising", no politician seemed to be especially concerned with it - not even Clinton. If you're advocating not over-promising, you would have to have been saying in 2016 'we need to run a platform we know that a GOP House and Senate will be willing to vote for'. That sounds like a pretty sad state of affairs to me.

I think it's perfectly possible and acceptable to campaign on single-payer, then fall back to the public option if you can't get the votes for it. It's clear from the fact you support single-payer that you probably still prefer public option to nothing, but I know you'll also fight for single-payer if it's there. Meanwhile, if you just promise to fight for the public option, I don't know what you'd do if single-payer is on the table. So why would I ever take someone aiming for the latter over someone aiming for the former?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Now replace "all else remains the same" with your argument that they win the senate in '16, but were bound to lose it in '18.

I cannot see why the GOP wouldn't obstruct a commie (sorry, "socialist") any less than Hillary. Maybe they would've been more amenable to Bernie, but... ehhhhh.

I agree, actually. I think the difference between Sanders and Clinton in office would have been close to minimal because of this - I've said as much before.

 

[jtb]

crab, it's meaningless because every 2020 candidate already agrees with you. Not because of the lack of governing outcomes

 

[Deleted member 231381]

crab, it's meaningless because every 2020 candidate already agrees with you. Not because of the lack of governing outcomes

I'm not talking about healthcare specifically, I mean in general. I mean, I very much hope that the 2020 candidates are going to talk about big picture/end goal politics, but that's very much unconfirmed as of yet.

 

[VendettaRed07]

She had a public option on her website since she started running.

What changes did she make to it when Sanders endorsed her then. Him wanting her to make a bigger pitch on healthcare was a hold up

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Asshole in Chief

Congress, get ready to do your job! - DACA

So yeah, he's just handing the ball to Congress on this, leaving millions of lives in the balance. The evil that just emanates from every pore of this asshole.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Clinton supported the public option for people aged 50 and up (a buy-in to Medicare). She didn't make her offer universal until Sanders' prompts. See here. It's why Sanders criticised her as offering 'Medicare for some'. There's a campaign event somewhere where Clinton criticises Sanders for pushing for a public option available to all, telling him it would be too expensive and infeasible.

 

[jtb]

I'm not talking about healthcare specifically, I mean in general. I mean, I very much hope that the 2020 candidates are going to talk about big picture/end goal politics, but that's very much unconfirmed as of yet.

I guess we read the current Dem party very differently. If there's one constant that everyone (sans Hillary probably) agrees, it's that she lacked imagination and vision.

would candidates rather be 08 Obama or 16 Clinton? she ran like a third term incumbent with horrible unfavorables and, well, you know. Whoever runs next won't be tied down in the same ways.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I guess we read the current Dem party very differently. If there's one constant that everyone (sans Hillary probably) agrees, it's that she lacked imagination and vision.

I don't know, all of the responses to her book where she illustrated how much vision she lacked in comparison to Sanders were lauded by half of this thread.

 

[dramatis]

NPR nicely made a detailed article of the September agenda:

Must pass:

1. Keep the government running
2. Avoid the first-ever default
3. Begin Hurricane Harvey relief efforts
4. Renew the National Flood Insurance Program
5. Renew children's health care (wow I didn't even know this was in trouble)
6. Face reality on health care

Other

• Approve the annual defense authorization bill
• "Republicans also still need to pass a budget resolution that outlines the broad contours of what they aim to do on the tax code."
• Immigration legislation
• The Wall, I guess

Looks like September is going to be even more of a fire than July was. And this is not accounting for any external events.

 

[Mark Andrew]

NPR nicely made a detailed article of the September agenda:

Must pass:

1. Keep the government running
2. Avoid the first-ever default
3. Begin Hurricane Harvey relief efforts
4. Renew the National Flood Insurance Program
5. Renew children's health care (wow I didn't even know this was in trouble)
6. Face reality on health care

Other

• Approve the annual defense authorization bill
• "Republicans also still need to pass a budget resolution that outlines the broad contours of what they aim to do on the tax code."
• Immigration legislation
• The Wall, I guess

Looks like September is going to be even more of a fire than July was. And this is not accounting for any external events.

Have a good time, everybody!

 

[VendettaRed07]

Clinton supported the public option for people aged 50 and up (a buy-in to Medicare). She didn't make her offer universal until Sanders' prompts. See here.

That's what I figured. Or why she never brought it up in response to Bernie's plan in debates. Because it's not a real counter or alternative to single payer

 

[jtb]

I don't know, all of the responses to her book where she illustrated how much vision she lacked in comparison to Sanders were lauded by half of this thread.

Then I'm glad no one in this thread running in 2020.

Spoiler

so far as we know

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Then I'm glad no one in this thread running in 2020.

Spoiler

so far as we know

No, but they do vote in primaries.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Clinton supported the public option for people aged 50 and up (a buy-in to Medicare). She didn't make her offer universal until Sanders' prompts. See here. It's why Sanders criticised her as offering 'Medicare for some'. There's a campaign event somewhere where Clinton criticises Sanders for pushing for a public option available to all, telling him it would be too expensive and infeasible.

She supported doing a public option via states well before that article.

I was wrong about her website having the public option all along, it was only updated in February 2016.

She supported it in 2008, as well, but eased off when the ACA passed, probably to give Obama some room for his own policy.

 

[dramatis]

I find it slightly hilarious how people who lose raw popular votes claim how much better their favored side or candidate was compared to the person who actually democratically won the vote.

September is going to be a long month. Let's move on.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

She supported doing a public option via states well before that article.

Okay, so we've moved from 'Clinton wanted to have the public option' to 'Clinton wanted to empower state government to be able to provide the public option'. This is a significant concession you're making, and I'm not going to let you goal-post shift. For example, what do you think the odds are that Kentucky would take up that offer? Mississippi? Alabama? Universal healthcare has to be universal, not provided by the lottery of which state you were born into.

I'm also skeptical that 'empower state government to be able to provide the public option' even means anything. States already have the authority to do this, and don't because it would be pointless if not done at a federal scale. If one were being cynical, one might say Clinton backed it precisely because it was a 'nothing' policy that sounds good until given cursory examination. Truly, the policies reflect the candidate.

 

[Mark Andrew]

Senior White House aide tells Politico that Trump might not end DACA after all if Congress fails to act in 6 months

What are they doing!?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I mean, considering my posts on this were 8 or 10 hours ago, and I moved the conversation on with my post querying how to make the apathetic left/centre left voters care, it's weird to bring this back to the front. I even gave a reasoned answer to why I think there may be value to an OT on the book - things to unpack and that may be of interest.

But whatevs. *shrug emoji*

Yeah, I realized after posting that the conversation had moved on and I just never refreshed to see it. Sorry about that.

 

[Pixieking]

Yeah, I realized after posting that the conversation had moved on and I just never refreshed to see it. Sorry about that.

Heh, no probs.

 

[Plinko]

What are they doing!?

Making their base think they're going to do it and then forget about it later.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

What are they doing!?

The fuck?

 

[Barzul]

Making their base think they're going to do it and then forget about it later.

Probably this. It worked with that legal immigration bill.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Okay, so we've moved from 'Clinton wanted to have the public option' to 'Clinton wanted to empower state government to be able to provide the public option'. This is a significant concession you're making, and I'm not going to let you goal-post shift. For example, what do you think the odds are that Kentucky would take up that offer? Mississippi? Alabama? Universal healthcare has to be universal, not provided by the lottery of which state you were born into.

I'm also skeptical that 'empower state government to be able to provide the public option' even means anything. States already have the authority to do this, and don't because it would be pointless if not done at a federal scale. If one were being cynical, one might say Clinton backed it precisely because it was a 'nothing' policy that sounds good until given cursory examination. Truly, the policies reflect the candidate.

Most of our country's progress has been done via states pushing for laws and programs within their own ecosystem, which then slowly grows to "take over" the entire country.

Our system encourages states to experiment, and then take those experiments and implement them at the federal level to take care of the slow states.

And anyway, it's always a lottery on what state your born in. My quality of life is substantially higher being in a city in WNY than being born in Kansas. That's how it's been since the days of an 1800s African American being born in Boston, instead of in Birmingham. It's the nature of the state system. The ease of movement between states is supposed to correct this, since you can easily just move to another state if the state doesn't suite your needs.

Clinton is a classic politician. She has a high level idea (everyone should be insured) and then reads the room to figure out what people want for that idea. It's why she goes from wanting a public option outright, to supporting the ACA, to supporting states making a public option, and then back to an outright public option.

What are they doing!?

I guess they're admitting the president has the power to implement DACA (

Spoiler

he probably doesn't

).

 

[RumbleHumble]

Announcing DACA closure without actually acting on it sounds oddly win-win for Trump's goals. You get immigrants to voluntarily leave/stay away from the country out of fear without actually having to do anything, you appease your crazy base, and you get viewed as a "merciful" leader for keeping it in place anyway.

It's an awful move for the country itself, but I could see Trump finding this choice really appealing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Most of our country's progress has been done via states pushing for laws and programs within their own ecosystem, which then slowly grows to "take over" the entire country.

No. Most of your country's progress has been done by the federal government dragging state governments kicking and screaming across the line.

And anyway, it's always a lottery on what state your born in. My quality of life is substantially higher being in a city in WNY than being born in Kansas. That's how it's been since the days of an African American being born in Boston, instead of in Birmingham. It's the nature of the state system.

"Things have always been shit" is not a valid reason for "Therefore things should continue to be shit."

The ease of movement between states is supposed to correct this, since you can easily just move to another state if the state doesn't suite your needs.

How out of touch are you? We're talking about healthcare - specifically, universal healthcare, covering those people who can't afford insurance under the present system. How likely do you think those people are to be able to afford to waltz off over to another state?

Clinton is a classic politician. She has a high level idea (everyone should be insured) and then reads the room to figure out what people want for that idea. It's why she goes from wanting a public option outright, to supporting the ACA, to supporting states making a public option, and then back to an outright public option.

Great, I'm so glad you picked a politician so good at reading the room, that really worked out well.

 

[Crocodile]

If there is value in not "over-promising", no politician seemed to be especially concerned with it - not even Clinton. If you're advocating not over-promising, you would have to have been saying in 2016 'we need to run a platform we know that a GOP House and Senate will be willing to vote for'. That sounds like a pretty sad state of affairs to me.

I think it's perfectly possible and acceptable to campaign on single-payer, then fall back to the public option if you can't get the votes for it. It's clear from the fact you support single-payer that you probably still prefer public option to nothing, but I know you'll also fight for single-payer if it's there. Meanwhile, if you just promise to fight for the public option, I don't know what you'd do if single-payer is on the table. So why would I ever take someone aiming for the latter over someone aiming for the former?

I mean there is always a delta between what a campaign promises and what it actually accomplishes but trying to keep that small seems like the best way to avert voter backlash/apathy no? I'm not sure healthcare is something where if you start at a lower ceiling that the floor must be lower as well.That feels more like an assumption or a somewhat juvenile (perhaps not the right word but its what came to mind) bargaining tactic? Also seems like a way to eat up a lot of time in a legislative calendar?

What are they doing!?

Finding a way to piss of literally EVERYONE in the country at the same time. We will soon all find unity in a shared hatred of Trump.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean there is always a delta between what a campaign promises and what it actually accomplishes but trying to keep that small seems like the best way to avert voter backlash/apathy no?

From the evidence we have, the voter apathy last election was in response to mediocre ambitions, not excessive ones.

I'm not sure healthcare is something where if you start at a lower ceiling that the floor must be lower as well.That feels more like an assumption or a somewhat juvenile (perhaps not the right word but its what came to mind) bargaining tactic?

That's not quite what I'm saying. Suppose there are three policy options, A, B, and C. Anyone who has the preference A > C also has the preference B > C, but otherwise we can't infer anything. If my preferences are A > B > C, I can be confident in giving my vote to someone expressing A > C, but not in someone expressing B > C. They might be B > A > C or even B > C > A! Of course, the B > C person might want A > B > C as well, but I can't be sure - I have doubt, I have uncertainty, I have all of the last things you want to have about a political candidate.

Of course, in Clinton's case, this is compounded by the fact she actively criticised the universally available public option on the primary campaign trail, something ballad has been desperately trying to move away from, but obviously this doesn't apply to candidates in general.

Also seems like a way to eat up a lot of time in a legislative calendar?

Possibly, but you don't get to worry about the legislative calendar if you don't get elected because people were skeptical that you'd walk the walk.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Savage.

 

[Greigor The Fellhand]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-donald-trump-kompromat-nikita-isaev-new-russia-movement-state-tv-us-president-a7929966.html

A Russian politician has threatened to "hit Donald Trump with our Kompromat" on state TV.

Speaking on Russia-24, Nikita Isaev, leader of the far-right New Russia Movement, said the compromising material should be released in retaliation over the closure of several Russian diplomatic compounds across the US.

When asked whether Russia has such material, Mr Isaev, who is also director of the Russian Institute of Contemporary Economics, replied: "Of course we have it!"

Rather Re-ignition of the Cold War than a Nuclear Winter near their border

 

[Mark Andrew]

Savage.

Can we get a fact check on this?

 

[VendettaRed07]

Most of our country's progress has been done via states pushing for laws and programs within their own ecosystem, which then slowly grows to "take over" the entire country.

Our system encourages states to experiment, and then take those experiments and implement them at the federal level to take care of the slow states.

And anyway, it's always a lottery on what state your born in. My quality of life is substantially higher being in a city in WNY than being born in Kansas. That's how it's been since the days of an 1800s African American being born in Boston, instead of in Birmingham. It's the nature of the state system. The ease of movement between states is supposed to correct this, since you can easily just move to another state if the state doesn't suite your needs.

Clinton is a classic politician. She has a high level idea (everyone should be insured) and then reads the room to figure out what people want for that idea. It's why she goes from wanting a public option outright, to supporting the ACA, to supporting states making a public option, and then back to an outright public option.

You could basically argue she supported recreational weed just because she wouldn't prosecute states that legalized if then.

But I think I'll just go back to my original point. Reducing their difference stances on healthcare to "2 second abs" marketing is absurd. Hillary idealistically campaigned on more healthcare options for the elderly, and cheaper drugs. Bernie proposed an actual plan to cover everyone. It wasn't really workable its campaign form but her rebuttal to his plans was absolutely not "a public option and 'Medicare for all' makes more sense and will be more affordable" then basically scrapping the ACA. But instead her response was that covering people will cost too much. Despite supporting trillions in foreign interventions. She had to be coarsed by spoiler candidate Bernie in order to support something she tried to argue she lead the charge on. Which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

No. Most of your country's progress has been done by the federal government dragging state governments kicking and screaming across the line.

This just isn't true at all. Pick a movement of progress in the US, and chances are high there's a state that tried that program or policy already before the federal government picked it up.

For the majority of our history, the federal government wasn't even that powerful. It wasn't until the 1900s that the power of the federal government was expanded dramatically.

"Things have always been shit" is not a valid reason for "Therefore things should continue to be shit."

Certain states will never have as high of a quality of life as others. Just by their geography and natural resources. There's always going to be discrepancies, since the US is so huge. We're basically 50 individual countries that come together to form the tightest European Union style arrange in existence. That's the design of our country.

How out of touch are you? We're talking about healthcare - specifically, universal healthcare, covering those people who can't afford insurance under the present system. How likely do you think those people are to be able to afford to waltz off over to another state?

Moving to another state isn't really that big of a deal. Millions and millions of people do it all the time.

People are flowing out of the dying midwest into southern states at record rates. There's rapid mobility to get out of poor states.

Great, I'm so glad you picked a politician so good at reading the room, that really worked out well.

So were you expecting her to pick up on white resentment and tailor her campaign towards it? That was the "feeling in the room" for 2016.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not bothering to respond to that because you haven't actually engaged with any of the points presented except perhaps charitably the first one.

Returning to the key point instead of Clinton discussion, whoever runs in 2020 needs to present big and engaging ideas, not the politics of 50 cent savings. Belittling candidates who run with ideas people like on the grounds that they're not immediately feasible is a good way to create voter apathy and discontent.

 

[sc0la]

Amazing that Trump wants a dysfunctional Congress to take up tax reform and some kind of DACA fix, when we needed a Harvey relief package like yesterday and there’s three weeks left to both keep the government running and avoid default.

And don't forget the parliamentarian deadline for health care under budget reconciliation.

He hasn't talked about it lately but maybe fox and friends will trigger him this week if they mention he's still holding that L.

Can we get a fact check on this?

Pants on fire.
Mostly True.
Technically Trump is the cuck and Putin is the bull.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm not bothering to respond to that because you haven't actually engaged with any of the points presented except perhaps charitably the first one.

Oh, okay, thanks

 

[Frank the Great]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-donald-trump-kompromat-nikita-isaev-new-russia-movement-state-tv-us-president-a7929966.html





Rather Re-ignition of the Cold War than a Nuclear Winter near their border

Let me get this straight. On the same day Putin launches a scathing criticism of Trump and US foreign policy, a Putin crony publicly threatens kompromat on state television. Whether or not it exists, Trump probably won't say anything in response to Vlad given the threat.

They are playing him like a goddamned fiddle.

 

[Funkyhamster]

Didn't see this posted yet. Ben Wittes is also hinting at news this week:

For those who missed this piece, published on the holiday, you might find this useful in the coming days.

Matt Tait (@pwnallthethings) was hinting at a big story last week, and since he was a source on the Peter Smith stories, my guess is that the story Matt Tait is hinting at will be about evidence that Flynn or Trump was aware of what Peter Smith was doing. I wonder if his hints, Ben Wittes's, and Rick Wilson's are all about the same story.

 

[Suikoguy]

No, but they do vote in primaries.

You mean, like yourself?

oh wait

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You mean, like yourself?

oh wait

I know, right? Think how much better things would be all your primary voting rights were mine.

 

[dramatis]

I know, right? Think how much better things would be all your primary voting rights were mine.

Apparently worse considering how the UK is doing.