Democratic (Party) Direction

unfair advantage for teachers and bartenders running for office: they are already accustomed to spending 14 hour days on their feet while talking to people the entire time

Also

UPDATED w/ latest results: so far in '18, female candidates are overperforming by an average of 12.2% in Dem primaries vs. 4.8% in GOP primaries (graphic credit: @CookPolitical intern Jacob Link). pic.twitter.com/Iqjc8kP0Gt

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) July 3, 2018

Schumer had a town-hall-by-phone the other day and was read the riot act

that Nation article (complete w/ cardboard cutout) was extremely funny imho

my opinion is the exact opposite. as long as we have this hyper-polarized political climate, meaningful policy change is nearly impossible. what i don't want to see is a repeat of the aca in which the whole thing was sabotaged from the get-go by republicans, who then said it was because it was a bad idea in the first place. too many leftists, i think, buy into this narrative, have the idea that it didn't work because it wasn't _radical_ enough, and minimize the role years of consistent republican opposition played in its failures. my legislative priorities for the democrats when they get in power are to reform our failed institutions so that they can function effectively again. that does, of course, include healthcare, as it has for decades, but it also includes a lot of other things now.

― Arch Bacon (rushomancy), Wednesday, 4 July 2018 12:10 (yesterday) Permalink

On your first statement, you're just wrong. Polarization only prevents meaningful policy change when you're deadlocked. Right now politics is extremely polarized and Republicans are achieving "meaningful policy change" at an alarming rate. They achieve change through power, not through compromise.

As for Obamacare, my thoughts on it are complicated but I think it's a bit of a strawman that the left criticism is that it wasn't "radical" enough. Maybe not bold or comprehensive enough to garner widespread enthusiasm, or too wonky and byzantine to do so.

I'm fully aware of how Republicans were able to hobble Obamacare and diminish its success, but their ability to do that was partly a function of its design -- too many moving parts that had to work in tandem. I still think it was an impressive feat of policy, perhaps almost too clever for its own good. And there are some aspects of it that are just hands down improvements, like the end of preexisting condition denials. Had the entire thing passed with a public option, I think it might have even functioned as a trojan horse that could have gotten us one step closer to some kind of universal healthcare program. Obviously rising premium costs and high deductibles would be less of an issue if many states hadn't deliberately refused free medicaid expansion money just to fuck with Obama.

I hope one day it will be remembered like one of those clunky and inelegant failed flying machines that preceded the Wright Bros more intuitive design.

They achieve change through power, not through compromise.

otmfm. they understand their power and use it fearlessly and ruthlessly, without hesitation. moreover, they have no scruples about stomping on and blotting out every carefully considered and scrupulously measured action Obama took, as he hoped to achieve the sort of consensus that usually is produced by compromise. except the republicans did not compromise with him and their only consensus was to repeal his policies.

I read something vaguely relevant to all of this *gestures at whole thread* recently but I think it was in the New Yorker and so it would be extremely obvious of me to link it here probably

The thing that still really supports rushomancys point is that the GOP failed to repeal Obamacare.

Certainly one of the smarter things about Obamacare is the recognition that once you give people a benefit it's hard to take it away. But the republican strategy against Obamacare is multi-pronged. They are not only trying to repeal it but also trying to weaken it to the point of collapse, which they may still achieve. Plan costs have become untenable for many, deductibles are too high, etc. If not for the preexisting condition aspect I think you'd have seen it repealed already but there are enough people saying "if it wasn't for this I couldn't get healthcare at all" that it's hard to repeal directly.

Rush's point is correct that this is partly by design on the part of Republicans -- they want to make it untenable. But the complexity and wonkishness of Obamacare is precisely what renders it so vulnerable to GOP attack.

which they may still achieve

Largely unnoticed in the massive tax-cut bill that was passed under reconciliation and therefore only required 51 votes in the Senate, was a repeal of the tax penalties for not having medical insurance, which was a critical component of the ACA. Unless this is reinstated, or else a new mechanism is passed for funding the subsidies and bringing people into the system, the ACA will collapse.

It will be interesting to see how well the USA medical system withstands the collapse of the ACA and how much chaos this will cause.

wow, sad lol, I didn't even realize that had happened. I was just having a conversation with a friend who works in the industry and was like "Obamacare is going to fail without the individual mandate" and I thought she was speaking hypothetically.

Democratic Direction: towards people who actually recognize what we’re up against.

In his own way I think Kennedy really fucked the GOP for November. Hopefully for the next three Novembers.

You mean you think GOP turnout will be lower without a nomination on the line? I hope that's true. Seems challenging to tease out.

No, if GOP turnout is down (which it will be) it will be because of tribal shame and disgust with Trump and his legislative enablers. Guy can’t even fill a college basketball stadium in Peoria anymore. And low-info racist dopes have not a fucking clue who Anthony Kennedy is or what his seat means.

I mean that Kennedy stepping down is yet one more reason to GOTV for Dems & I predict record-breaking turnout in a shitload of places. And just when the beltway shitbird pundit class thought enthusiasm was going down!

GOP turnout will be high; it's indie turnout that'll suck.

high on what

Largely unnoticed in the massive tax-cut bill that was passed under reconciliation and therefore only required 51 votes in the Senate, was a repeal of the tax penalties for not having medical insurance, which was a critical component of the ACA.

the near-silence about this at the time of the repeal (and now) was so odd. when the ACA was passed, a commonly-referenced analogy was that the individual mandate was one critical component of a three-legged stool (the others being preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and providing subsidies for people who can't afford insurance). now that the mandate is gone, you'd think that the impending collapse of ACA would be top news, but it's not. cue the usual people trying to convince me that there's been wall-to-wall news coverage on this and everyone in the united states is very aware of the issue, but i haven't seen it. you'd think that at least there would be interviews with rightwing dipshits about how much better their life is now that they're not forced to purchase communist socialized healthcare or whatever.

the right wants it quiet so it looks like ACA failed on its own. the left is maybe quiet because everything, it's on fire?

tbc, i do think they'll want credit, but also want it to be an "inherent failure of socialized medicine."

I think a lot of the relatively healthy folks who were supposed to be buying insurance under the mandate ended up just taking the tax hit. Chalk it up to the “young people understanding income tax” fallacy.

The proof of the individual mandate will be in how many insurers pull out of which markets next year, and how much rates go up. Regardless: Medicare for all is a winning issue, it drives poll turnout, and November is gonna fucking suck for the GOP.

How many trials do you think POTUS will have to testify in in October btw? One or two?

ha zero? i think youre right about november, from july at least. and as far as gop goes and their terrible arguments, well...they want what they want.

I read something vaguely relevant to all of this *gestures at whole thread* recently but I think it was in the New Yorker and so it would be extremely obvious of me to link it here probably

― devops mom (silby), Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:12 AM (sixteen hours ago)

u should link it

*gestures at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine*

was this one. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/the-rise-of-mcpolitics

I'm not sure I believe that "many long for moderation" as a line tossed off near the conclusion suggests but otherwise yknow, a thing to read

Oh that’s Yascha Mounk isn’t it. Dude’s a Third Way Type who freaks out about ‘populism’ in a way that deliberately collapses any distinctions in it.

Also the “moderation” that he longs for doesn’t make sense with his invocation of Schlesinger’s quote. Schlesinger was talking about Truman-era Fair Deal/social democracy, _not_ the neoliberal hell shit is now.

that piece mourns the destruction of the political order that preserved jim crow for a century, and its replacement with the order that resulted, immediately and inevitably, from the destruction of jim crow. this sort of lib will never free anyone. all they will do is take credit for those already freed.

presumably to avoid further wounding the ‘white working class’, the new holy cow of chastened metropolitans is some limited thinking bullshit overreach regarding the damage reactionaries wish to do without considering leftist necessities for overcoming them imo. labeling them sacred cows is rhetoric.

sorry that's from mishra's opinion

what would Jemmy Madison say about the Red Hen

whenever you see someone today wringing their hands over the fact that people haven't been this serious about politics since 1860, you should imagine them in 1860 wringing their hands over how terrible it is people have spurned stephen douglas by refusing to allow the 1850 compromise to work

lol

it depends which founders were dirtbags and which were fuckin centrist libs, and were any reactionaries? i'll have to rewatch hamilton to find out. i mean, none were alt-right tories, and all were like 30 or younger at convention time, right?

^^^the dangers of attempting to remodel the past on your present?^^^

c'mon there will never be any reason to watch Hamilton

a reason is that it's fun to watch

thread now heading into even more fraught waters

NB I do not have the wherewithal to argue about whether Hamilton is good or not, anyway thanks all for verifying that this thing I read is eyebrow-raising to say the least. I did find the discussion of the "unsorted" political parties kind of intriguing but as mentioned the fact that that system was the one that maintained Jim Crow is a pretty major strike against it

i haven't seen hamilton and i try not to have opinions on it anyway lol

2bclear i don't mean madison's an idiot and that every party should always be the bolsheviks. just that sometimes a country simply can't put its business off any longer.

w/ earplugs and supertitles maybe

xxxp

c'mon there will never be any reason to watch Hamilton
a reason is that it's fun to watch
thread now heading into even more fraught waters

you are killing my punch line

dlh, your point is well taken tho

Hamilton was a quasi-Tory who went batshit insane after 1796 but wrote often and well about exec power limits (and was anti-slavery).

Hamilton was also Washington's de facto prime minister, and Washington's good sense is still underrated.

from what i have heard it does a bad job of entirely ignoring the historical black voices of the time in favor of founder's chic & more glorifying white male culture. it is not to tell the story of historical black people but to use modern casting to sexify crusty old US nationalism. Thomas Jefferson's slave, with whom he had multiple children, is in the show, but she has a non speaking role and does a sexy dance. when he died he had promised her and her children freedom, but they were quickly sold anyways. now they are historically exploited once more by the act of a woke culture. there were black spies for the Revolution but there are none in this show. it is just more product of the oppressive culture. it is a vampire, like the media, feeding on the ally industrial complex.

yes these wonderful dudes that were anti slavery and even wrote All Men Are Created Equal what great people they were (in their writings)

saying and doing are different things. what you do is all that matters.

Thomas Jefferson's slave, with whom he had multiple children, is in the show

…not that I recall.

Unless you mean Sally Hemmings has joined the touring cast from beyond the grave

I don't think that's exactly true. And I had to consult Wiki:

Of the hundreds of slaves he owned, Jefferson formally freed only two slaves while he was living: Hemings' older brothers Robert, who had to buy his freedom, and James Hemings (who was required to train his brother Peter for three years to get his freedom). He freed five slaves in his will - all males from the extended Hemings family, including Madison and Eston Hemings, his two "natural" children. Harriet was the only female slave he allowed to go free.[43] In addition to manumission for the Hemings men in his will, he petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in the state. No documentation has been found for Sally Hemings' emancipation.[37][38]

my jaw kind of dropped when i heard them singing "How lucky we are to be alive right now?" like are u kidding me? no wonder Mike Pence went to this.

the challopsy-at-the-time oped that accused it of "blackwashing" history seemed about right to me

I mean I don’t think anybody is being hoodwinked here. Maybe 14 year olds.