Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 224: The Congressional Contempt for Political Buggery

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not_an_Owl posted...

The older you are, the more likely you are to vote.

Sorry, I should have clarified. My mistake.

What I meant was that I wouldn't count on them showing up and voting Biden or really any Democrat. Especially not in numbers that would win the election. Democrats need to get out the youth vote. And young people are SUPER Disillusioned by the whole process (which is why they don't vote)

*eyes emoji*
---

I prefer sanders over biden but that needs like 15 citations needed slapped all over it

You know that Facebook Memes are always factual and true.
---

Kinda doubt all of those are fair characterizations (for example, I know that Biden has come out in favor of a public option, which is what many people imagine when they hear Medicare for All). Like what counts as Biden opposing closing corporate tax loopholes or open, accessible elections?

Also the TPP wasnt perfect, but it should have been passed.
---

who the fuck thinks of a public option as "medicare for all"? i cannot fathom any person thinking that, because...it isn't? in any way?

and yeah the meme certainly lacks nuance and is made to favor sanders, but its basic idea is correct. biden doesn't support anything remotely progressive and hasn't throughout his career.

Like it or not, basically all of the Dems have been calling whatever their favored plan is Medicare for All, and different people will interpret it differently. Some of them want what you want (a single government run insurance program covering everybody), but there are also a lot of people who specifically dont want that, and would be upset if told they were losing their private insurance without a choice (even if they support a public option). The reason MFA polls so well is that everybody is free to imagine that it means what they want it to mean.
---

why would anyone like that 'all of the democrats' have been lying about supporting medicare for all and confusing all of the voters?

TheRock1525 posted...

You know that Facebook Memes are always factual and true.

Great content Rock, good discussion.

also yeah, its a meme. We can talk about it, there wasnt anything else going on in here.

I would LOVE for someone to refute specific parts of it, and as Cyclo said, nobody I know thinks of a Public Option as Medicare for All, so thats a dubious point.

I dont criticize Biden for no reason, but its because Id love someone to show me factual reasons why im wrong about him (pretty much no one ever defends Biden, instead they just dump on the messenger).
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

nobody I know thinks of a Public Option as Medicare for All, so thats a dubious point.

You don't think there's a reason the meme isn't phrasing the top row as "replace private insurance with a Medicare-like program for everyone"?

And I don't know how to refute seemingly made-up stuff like "Biden opposes closing tax loopholes" because I don't know what they're talking about. Like, this article mentions that he has talked about closing tax loopholes in his stump speech:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2020-presidential-candidate-joe-biden-appeals-labor-unions/story?id=62665235

But maybe they're referring to something specific?? (I doubt it).
---

yeah I'm about as Anti-Biden as anybody in the topic but I'm also strongly on the side of [citation needed] for several of those rather than trying to work out what the fuck

You don't think there's a reason the meme isn't phrasing the top row as "replace private insurance with a Medicare-like program for everyone"?

So let me get this right...you want the meme to identify Biden as supporting Medicare for all in case the voters are confused by the Democrats like Biden lying about what Medicare for all means, but think it's dishonest of it to say Bernie supports Medicare for all because of the theoretical possibility that voters might not understand what Medicare for all means?

And about tax loopholes, are you suggesting the meme is wrong or just mad that it isn't cited? Like, do you think Biden generally or specifically supports closing any tax loopholes? Has he ever proposed doing so or talked about it? Do you think he would vote for a bill doing so? What sort of loopholes do you think he would support closing? I've certainly never heard him mention any.

Nrrr posted...

So let me get this right...you want the meme to identify Biden as supporting Medicare for all in case the voters are confused by the Democrats like Biden lying about what Medicare for all means, but think it's dishonest of it to say Bernie supports Medicare for all because of the theoretical possibility that voters might not understand what Medicare for all means?

I'm saying that the meme is trying to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking that Biden wants no expansion of government health insurance, while he actually wants to offer a public option. (It also misleads in that it allows people who support a public option but not single payer to think that Bernie agrees with them, though I'm not quite as annoyed about that one).

Nrrr posted...

And about tax loopholes, are you suggesting the meme is wrong or just mad that it isn't cited? Like, do you think Biden generally or specifically supports closing any tax loopholes? Has he ever proposed doing so or talked about it? Do you think he would vote for a bill doing so? What sort of loopholes do you think he would support closing? I've certainly never heard him mention any.

I think it's quite likely that the meme is wrong to suggest that Biden "opposes" closing tax loopholes. In the article I linked he mentions wanting to close them. I don't know which loopholes he's talking about, but there certainly have been no examples posted by the meme or people here of ones he wants to keep.
---

Hey, Im willing to admit that the article LotM shared DOES say Biden talked about closing tax loopholes, but I want specifics.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/wall-street-democrats-2020-candidates.html

I think this helps address my position. Wall Street Dems would rather vote Trump than Bernie, but would love Biden. You have to wonder why?

What matters more? he asked, looking up at me. My social values or my paycheck?

Theres even quotes from people upset they wont be able to buy influence. Like...sorry but thats not the kind of political system I want for this country.
---

Also I think it needs to be reiterated that the people calling Bernie too far Left are betraying how off-kilter our Politics are in the US, because there are countless other countries with active, represented (and in power) Political Parties well to the Left of him.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also I think it needs to be reiterated that the people calling Bernie too far Left are betraying how off-kilter our Politics are in the US, because there are countless other countries with active, represented (and in power) Political Parties well to the Left of him.

An uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced with regard to this point is that studies have shown that the more diverse a population is the more conservative and hostile to left-wing economic policy they are... and conversely that the more homogeneous they are.

Which poses a far bigger hurdle in a more diverse country like America than it does in Europe. Also, I have the impression that intentional or not, when you're saying "well to the left" you mean economically primarily.
---

xp1337 posted...

An uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced with regard to this point is that studies have shown that the more diverse a population is the more conservative and hostile to left-wing economic policy they are... and conversely that the more homogeneous they are.

Is this even really true? Setting aside that FDR is our longest serving President, In recent years, Democrats consistently get more votes overall, but lose based on how our system is setup.

Also something freaky as FUCK: I typed in how many years going to doublecheck how many years FDR served to make sure I wasnt forgetting something incredibly simple, and it auto-brought up FDRs Wikipedia, and this was before I typed his name anywhere.

xp1337 posted...

Which poses a far bigger hurdle in a more diverse country like America than it does in Europe. Also, I have the impression that intentional or not, when you're saying "well to the left" you mean economically primarily.

And yeah, to this.

Except for Abortion, where I can logically see the reasoning against it, (even if I think its shortsighted and wrong), most Social issues imo boil down to are you an asshole or not, and arent worth debating. I know some countries with Socialist Parties are backwards in these regards, but theres a lot of cultural shit thats tricky for a bunch of white American dudes to discuss.

Inb4 tolerant Left
---

The fact that the US is not homogeneous is not the issue. the fact that the government is consistently and by design more conservative than the population is. Even if the public opinion never reached as left that of a less homogeneous place, it isn't reaching where we actually are either. Because we have a
oligarchy. And I don't buy that the lack of a homogeneous society will be as impactful in the future, gen z is the most diverse, left wing generation so far. And it isn't because they are young, studies show that the myth people grow more conservative as they age is not true, it is that more wealthy people are more conservative and poorer people die younger.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is this even really true?

Yes.

I swear there was a more straight-forward study (or presentation of data) but since I didn't save it or anything, here's the best reference I could get on short notice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/30/white-americas-racial-resentment-is-the-real-impetus-for-welfare-cuts-study-says

The study covered by the article has a more narrow focus of showing how opposition to welfare in white Americans is tied to racial anxiety though like I said I've seen data that addressed the issue more broadly but argh not finding it atm.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Setting aside that FDR is our longest serving President

wait what does this have to do with anything?

The New Deal? It had numerous provisions that uh... were bad on racial issues. Housing segregation is a big one IIRC.

Or if you just mean generally "FDR was a democrat checkmate!" I mean... "so?" That was kinda a unique circumstance what with the Great Depression happening and then WWII after it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

In recent years, Democrats consistently get more votes overall, but lose based on how our system is setup.

but isn't your criticism that the democratic party establishment isn't actually progressive?

Many right-wing talking points have been baked in to most "mainstream" economic discussion for a long time. I mean, it's a credit that Obama didn't go for austerity like some of Europe did in response to the Recession but a lot of attitudes around labor, welfare, etc have been tilted far enough that it's not as straight-forward as "Dems win the popular vote all the time so the public supports progressive economic policy"

I mean... polling shows they do but I think you would agree that it is alarmingly easy for the right to get people to go against those very same proposals they support even if it's against their own interests.

Yes, the electoral system makes things harder too because it's intentionally undemocratic and distorts everything grotesquely but there's more factors at play than just that!
---

...I don't even think we disagree? I'm not saying "welp it's impossible because diversity and racial resentment will thwart all progressive policy" I'm saying it's an added hurdle to overcome much like the electoral system's disproportionate representation of rural (and increasingly conservative) America.

And that both are challenges faced in America that aren't to the same extent in many more "progressive" European countries that are pointed to. There's more nuance to it than that!
---

xp1337 posted...

The New Deal? It had numerous provisions that uh... were bad on racial issues. Housing segregation is a big one IIRC.

Or if you just mean generally "FDR was a democrat checkmate!" I mean... "so?" That was kinda a unique circumstance what with the Great Depression happening and then WWII after it.

I thought I was pretty obviously not trying to gotcha or checkmate you but discuss, and YOU literally brought it up and I responded that in general Im talking about Left-leaning economics, so I dont understand the point of any of this. Wtf

but isn't your criticism that the democratic party establishment isn't actually progressive?

Yes, and in a two party system many people are ok with voting for the one that sucks less.

My supporting statement is that the groups that vote Republican the Least are also the least likely to vote. Id argue theres evidence that its because the Democrats dont do enough.

Its like you took a ton of effort to read my post in the most rigid and argumentative way possible, Im a little taken aback, not gonna lie.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The economy is [really good] and yet we have *this many* people in abject poverty, dying without healthcare, struggling to find work, etc

You know, Bernies consistent stump speech for the past 40 years.

Bernie and Warren are pretty much the best people who can make the argument to vote against President with great economy.

I would actually argue Yang is, but he doesn't really have a shot. But Bernie and Warren are good choices too

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I thought I was pretty obviously not trying to gotcha or checkmate you but discuss, and YOU literally brought it up and I responded that in general Im talking about Left-leaning economics, so I dont understand the point of any of this. Wtf

I was confused that you brought FDR up! I didn't bring him up and what you saw was me trying to figure out why you did by throwing a few ideas out! maybe saying "checkmate" was a bit dismissive of me but I was genuinely puzzled as to invoking FDR and his term as president had to do with what I had originally said.

I mean, I presented a(n article explaining a) study showing how opposition to welfare was shown to increase in white Americans when shown information about increasing diversity. FDR has nothing to do with that.

My whole point was that racial resentment to rising diversity leads to opposition to progressive policies. The example I provided was narrow in scope but I admitted that I couldn't find the broader data I was thinking of and provided that on short notice when you asked if what I said was true.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yes, and in a two party system many people are ok with voting for the one that sucks less.

My supporting statement is that the groups that vote Republican the Least are also the least likely to vote. Id argue theres evidence that its because the Democrats dont do enough.

What evidence?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Its like you took a ton of effort to read my post in the most rigid and argumentative way possible, Im a little taken aback, not gonna lie.

I wasn't trying to. You questioned if what I said was true, which is fair, I knew when I stated it originally I might be asked for something to back it up. I couldn't get the exact thing I was looking for but I did have something very closely related.

But then, from my point of view, you added in some things that to me... didn't actually address or refute what I had claimed. So I tried to think of how they could have been meant to do so. I was a bit snippy in my response to them, and I shouldn't have been - so sorry for that, but I genuinely had no clue what they were in response to, it certainly didn't seem like it was to the point I was making.

~~~

I mean on a more macro-level and where I suspect this discussion would ultimately go if we went deep on it is the intersection of race and economic politics. And maybe even more broadly race and progressive politics in general. (For instance I think you are way to dismissive of the non-economic side of things even if just as a means to try and understand the challenges inherent in actually implementing said policies but I didn't really feel like delving into that right now.)
---

word of advice my dudes, multi-party systems ain't all they're cracked up to be
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

word of advice my dudes, multi-party systems ain't all they're cracked up to be

Maybe not, but the two party system is NOT working. It allows one party to gain too much control and too much power.
---

The two party system is problematic but I'd rate it as less of a problem than the Senate and the Electoral College, though the latter is the reason why we have a two-party system but I just mean the nature of the EC distorting the electorate in much the same way as the Senate.

really there are just so many problems and they're getting worse

Like to drive the point of how the Senate is by far the biggest problem facing the country:

Given population estimates, in 2040, 50% of the population will be in 8 states. So on the flip side half the population will control 84 Senate seats. Going a bit further into it, if you add the next 8 biggest states to the total you're up to ~70% of the population in 16 states. So 30% of the population would control 70% of the Senate.

that is an existential crisis
---

xp1337 posted...

The two party system is problematic but I'd rate it as less of a problem than the Senate and the Electoral College, though the latter is the reason why we have a two-party system but I just mean the nature of the EC distorting the electorate in much the same way as the Senate.

really there are just so many problems and they're getting worse

Like to drive the point of how the Senate is by far the biggest problem facing the country:

Given population estimates, in 2040, 50% of the population will be in 8 states. So on the flip side half the population will control 84 Senate seats. Going a bit further into it, if you add the next 8 biggest states to the total you're up to ~70% of the population in 16 states. So 30% of the population would control 70% of the Senate.

that is an existential crisis

Thank God for that. Long live the Senate of the Republic. For 8 states to have half the power would indeed be an existential crisis, but with our system, that can't happen no matter what their population is.
---

This actually has nothing to do with politics, but I needed to post it:
https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1128088472433188865

The president of the united states calls this guy for advice, by the way
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This actually has nothing to do with politics, but I needed to post it:
https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1128088472433188865

The president of the united states calls this guy for advice, by the way

Lmao
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/13/trump-is-staking-reelection-one-his-biggest-lies/?utm_term=.d1898331731a

All of this arguing about Bernie, Biden, Beto, or Buttigieg could be for nothing if Trump continues to be catastrophically bad at business and tanks the economy over CHI-NA
---

Trump has been staking his presidency on the economy since he started running. This is the reason people voted for him.
---

the electoral college isn't why we have a two party system. it's the FPTP winner take all mechanic in general
---

^
---

xp1337 posted...

Given population estimates, in 2040, 50% of the population will be in 8 states. So on the flip side half the population will control 84 Senate seats. Going a bit further into it, if you add the next 8 biggest states to the total you're up to ~70% of the population in 16 states. So 30% of the population would control 70% of the Senate.

It's even worse than that really. 30% of the population isn't controlling 70% of the senate. I'd say closer to 22% of the population. Because no politician gets close to 100% of the vote in any state. Or even really 80%.
---

For 8 states to have half the power would indeed be an existential crisis, but with our system, that can't happen no matter what their population is.

Why?
---

HeroicSpiderPig posted...

For 8 states to have half the power would indeed be an existential crisis, but with our system, that can't happen no matter what their population is.

Why?

senate + electoral college

unless you're asking why it'd be an existential crisis, where the answer is: it wouldn't be
---

If we are gonna keep fttp it is absolutely imperative that we have ranked choice voting. And the Senate should be abolished along with the electoral college. Voting days should be a holiday, everyone should automatically be registered to vote at 18, civics classes should be taught in all public schools, and the voting age should be lowered to 16. We should try actually being a democracy.

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1128344926037651457

kill me.

"When Trump is out of office, Republicans will suddenly realize they need to work with us again. Just like they did when Barack Obama was presid---wait a minute!"
---

this is why it literally would not matter if joe biden had the exact same platform as bernie sanders, he won't fucking do any of it (and never actually planned to, he just knows because of bernie he has to run on certain things) and will just "try to work with the republicans" and end up enacting republican legislation.

You'd think that somebody who was in the white house at that time would be less naive about the idea that Republicans would be cordial.

Every indication we've received from 99% of Republicans over the last decade has been that they either get their way or they throw a tantrum and try to prevent anything from being done. You have to be an absolute moron to think that any Republican politician gives any shits about bipartisanship.
---

Bipartisanship: where Democrats work with Republicans to deliver the worst parts of Republican policy.
---

joe biden is not an absolute moron and absolutely knows that is a farce, he just thinks we are total rubes.

he is just saying campaign trail "we gotta work together folks we are all americans this is not normal" shit because his platform is 'a return to normalcy'. he wants to trick us stupid people with the memory of a goldfish who now love george w bush into thinking donald trump is an aberration and not just the natural continuation of republican politics that he is. he wants us to think if we just do obama part 2 we can rest easy and stop being concerned about the world.

do you guys remember the awful daily show 'rally to restore sanity' stunt from back in the day? his entire campaign is basically that. or to put it into better terms:
https://twitter.com/internethippo/status/881161169469403137?lang=en

Peace___Frog posted...

You'd think that somebody who was in the white house at that time would be less naive about the idea that Republicans would be cordial.

Every indication we've received from 99% of Republicans over the last decade has been that they either get their way or they throw a tantrum and try to prevent anything from being done. You have to be an absolute moron to think that any Republican politician gives any shits about bipartisanship.

I feel like Biden knows that the GOP wouldn't work with him, but he has to pretend otherwise because most voters don't think the GOP would do that sort of thing. I know a lot of older people who aren't Republicans but still blame Obama for the GOP obstruction during his presidency because "he should have done more to work with them" and "Obama's ideas were way too far left, he should have compromised more". Since Biden can't really appeal to the left, these are the voters he has to sell himself to.
---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/steve-bullock-president-2020/index.html

Republicans hold on to the Senate 100% now. Steve Bullock is a dumb dumb who is going to not win a single electoral vote while he had a very real shot at the senate seat in Montana.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/steve-bullock-president-2020/index.html

Republicans hold on to the Senate 100% now. Steve Bullock is a dumb dumb who is going to not win a single electoral vote while he had a very real shot at the senate seat in Montana.

Was Montana a necessary flip to win the Senate?
---

I could be wrong, but to me it was in the top four most likely to flip.

Bullock is extremely popular in Montana, and Montana just re-elected Tester by a sizable margin in 2018. I thought there was a real chance Bullock could win there and I'm having a hard time cobbling together an even remotely plausible path to the senate without Montana in play.

And Montana is not in play without Bullock. His decision to run for president just makes no sense.
---

Looking at the map again, Colorado is a slam dunk (but then so is Alabama for the Republicans).

So you need three out of Maine (where Collins is still popular), Iowa, North Carolina, and Arizona. The only ones of those I would've give Dems better than fifty percent odds on would be Arizona. ME and MT were both doable, maybe, but IA and NC are both absolutely stretches.

MT makes the map way way worse for us.
---

I dont think Montana is in the top 4, but being able to miss one or two of the easier ones makes getting to 50 a lot easier.
---

NFUN posted...

the electoral college isn't why we have a two party system. it's the FPTP winner take all mechanic in general

Fair. FPTP winner take all is definitely the engine behind it, and honestly probably the better answer since the EC is only truly a factor at the presidential level while FPTP is driving it on every other level.

I was thinking in terms of how the EC handles the "no one reaches 270" scenario. Kicking it to the House and then not even an actual House vote but each state voting as a delegation (meaning that, hypothetically, if 2020 ended in a 269-269 scenario, Trump probably wins even though the Dems hold the House by a large margin because atm the Republicans still hold more state delegations. I say probably because this is theoretically flippable with a strong 2020 performance but you get the point) you can hardly provide a stronger disincentive to a robust third party.

TheRock1525 posted...

Was Montana a necessary flip to win the Senate?

No, but it really doesn't help.

2020 Senate map is pretty good for the Dems, other than AL they don't really have any vulnerable seats.

At 53-47 they need to net 3 (plus win presidency)

Assume CO and AL exchange hands for no gain.

Dems would probably then want to look to pickup: AZ, ME, NC, and IA. Those are probably the best bets for flipping seats.

"Stretch" goals would include: GA, MT, and TX... but not only are all of those unlikely, they all likely required having Abrams, Bullock, and Beto running for the seats to even have a chance and that's an 0/3. I mean, I guess if Beto gets on the presidential ticket maybe TX is still a stretch goal but yeah... Also, if the Republicans mess up in Alabama maybe holding it somehow is a stretch goal too lol.

tl;dr: Bullock not running for MT Senate is not needed to regain the Senate but dammit it would have helped make the math better.
---