|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:so what you are saying is that the left needs its own tea party only if you can come up with a better name than they did
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
logikv9 posted:only if you can come up with a better name than they did
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:if he makes his voters happy, you can't pin him on not backing a concept in a law that would've have been in full force. what are you going to say, "i'm going to run ads calling you a tool of the insurance companies"? sure that'll turn off a few dems but guess what, he's an independent that gets votes from both parties and he might get rewarded by the mobilized and angry republican base who see him as the dude who single-handedly killed the death panels law. the dems who voted for him will split between "i don't like debt either" and the "i wanted the public option too" crowd and only one will win It's very easy to just assume the inevitability of a political outcome and do nothing, rather than taking the effort of threatening his seat. I mean, assuming there is nothing you can do to assail Republican dominance in flyover country is part of why Democrats are no longer a national party of power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the rave party seems redundant
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:only if you can come up with a better name than they did I dunno. The 'Taxed Enough Already' construction really hit home with the people they were trying to convert. The derpy revolutionary costumes also carried water with the 'hyper patriotic but hates actual government' group that makes up their core. The Tea Party was some well executed astro-turfing. Miles better than anything the Dems have ever come up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's very easy to just assume the inevitability of a political outcome and do nothing, rather than taking the effort of threatening his seat. I mean, assuming there is nothing you can do to assail Republican dominance in flyover country is part of why Democrats are no longer a national party of power. i'm sure they pressed him on it. i'm sure they called him up in the wee hours of the morning and said "what the gently caress joe what the gently caress is wrong with you we have three bills here that have the public option now vote for it" but there are choices that must be made: press lieberman, risk losing his complete support and get hosed completely, press lieberman gently, waste a ton of time, and lose everything, or just say "ok" and compromise. LBJ's reanimated corpse wasn't available at the time
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:if he makes his voters happy, you can't pin him on not backing a concept in a law that would've have been in full force. what are you going to say, "i'm going to run ads calling you a tool of the insurance companies"? sure that'll turn off a few dems but guess what, he's an independent that gets votes from both parties and he might get rewarded by the mobilized and angry republican base who see him as the dude who single-handedly killed the death panels law. the dems who voted for him will split between "i don't like debt either" and the "i wanted the public option too" crowd and only one will win They could, at a minimum, threatened to boot him from the caucus, strip him of his committee chairmanships/seniority/perrogatives, and reassign him as a junior member of garbage unimportant committees. You will notice they did not even consider doing any of this. Mind you he might have switched over to caucusing with the Republcians, but there are indeed lots of ways to potentially apply pressure if you're willing to break decorum. LGD has issued a correction as of 05:52 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:so incredibly awful that obama, the namesake of the law, was defeated by romney in 2012 This is a bit disingenious when most of the lovely consequences were intentionally time delayed not to happen until his second term
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I dunno. The 'Taxed Enough Already' construction really hit home with the people they were trying to convert. The derpy revolutionary costumes also carried water with the 'hyper patriotic but hates actual government' group that makes up their core. The Tea Party was some well executed astro-turfing. Miles better than anything the Dems have ever come up with. exactly, which is why you really have to knock this out of the park
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
LGD posted:They could, at a minimum, threatened to boot him from the caucus, strip him of his committee chairmanships/seniority/perrogatives, and reassign him to garbage committees with no authority. doing all of this will turn one independent who you need to make happy into one republican who will just say "no" you need him more than he needs you
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:exactly, which is why you really have to knock this out of the park Liberty Party
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
does the Worker's Party bringing up too many negative connotations?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:doing all of this will turn one independent who you need to make happy into one republican who will just say "no" That's why it's a threat rather than something you start out doing, but if they'd rather switch parties than vote for a basic tenet of the program your party just won a mandate to implement then it's a trigger to consider pulling. Sure if you're actually forced to go through with it you might get an ultra-spiteful party-switcher, but is it really something he'd throw away all of his privileges and power to achieve? A filibuster-proof majority isn't actually filibuster-proof if you can't get it to vote on your legislation. LGD has issued a correction as of 06:01 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:doing all of this will turn one independent who you need to make happy into one republican who will just say "no" That depends on a lot of things, namely how strongly he/she feels about that particular issue, whether resisting pressure from other congressmen is worth maintaining ideological purity, among other things. Yeah some congressman might be completely unable to be swayed but I'm not convinced this is some hard and fast rule You're framing this in a pretty fatalist way
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:doing all of this will turn one independent who you need to make happy into one republican who will just say "no" It might have been possible, but certainly not by Obama. He's going to be remembered as charismatic, popular, and a bit of a doormat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
LGD posted:That's why it's a threat rather than something you start out doing, but if they'd rather switch parties than vote for a basic tenet of the program your party just won a mandate to implement then it's a trigger to consider pulling. Sure if you're actually forced to go through with it you might get an ultra-spiteful party-switcher, but is it really something he'd throw away all of his privileges and power to achieve? not being otherwise bound to the party makes the risk to him smaller than you would probably believe. lets say you push ultra-hard, he doesn't cave (remember the article I quoted, his state is insurance capital #1 and he is risking angering his biggest campaign donor and probably employer in his state), and now he's on the GOP's side. not caving and singlehandedly loving over their attempts at reform will probably get you rewarded by both your biggest donor buoying chances at re-election and admiration from the party who opposed the whole thing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
The fillerbuster is bad and needs to go away. Cloture should also be limited to 55 members.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
the public option would have been a baseball bat to the knee for insurance companies, and luckily for them they had the one senator they needed by the balls. if language from the primaries is to be believed, then money trumps  everything and he could not be swayed
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Obama's going to be remembered as the dude that took us from 800k job losses per month to 7 straight years of slow but steady growth, without creating an unstable bubble - while at the same time at least getting a foot in the door of healthcare coverage. He'll only be seen as a failure on here and the rhizzone (I repeat myself)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
There's no way I can cover 535 pages so yea is this the new Bernie thread? because if it's not then lol at even talking about keeping Trump limited to 4 years
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:There's no way I can cover 535 pages so yea is this the new Bernie thread? No
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:if you seriously believe this why aren't you out there partying yourself to death so you leave this mortal coil happy? I kind of am? Like I followed Sanders a couple years before this and this last primary was got me involved. Losing was bad enough I took a two week break from the forums because of why bother logging into misery porn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Oh, well surely it's a thread where his supporters now have equal or more weight than Clinton's former supporters? Or people who might still be trying to defend her? Or is it still the establishment "let's try to figure out went wrong without doing the appropriate soul searching" thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:Oh, well surely it's a thread where his supporters now have equal or more weight than Clinton's former supporters? Or people who might still be trying to defend her? if you're looking for d&d, it's that way ^
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Obama's going to be remembered as the dude that took us from 800k job losses per month to 7 straight years of slow but steady growth, without creating an unstable bubble - while at the same time at least getting a foot in the door of healthcare coverage. He'll only be seen as a failure on here and the rhizzone (I repeat myself) Turns out most of the growth was in the already rich urban centers and mainly accrued to the already wealthy. The 'recovery' never made it out to Middle America, and claiming everything is fine and Obama good and America is Already Great was a contributing factor in the loss of one Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent bid for the Presidency. Just to keep you updated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Obama's going to be remembered as the dude that took us from 800k job losses per month to 7 straight years of slow but steady growth, without creating an unstable bubble - while at the same time at least getting a foot in the door of healthcare coverage. He'll only be seen as a failure on here and the rhizzone (I repeat myself) The real estate bubble has been building again and silicon valley will probably take huge hits soon, so I'm not sure about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Obama's going to be remembered as the dude that took us from 800k job losses per month to 7 straight years of slow but steady growth, without creating an unstable bubble - while at the same time at least getting a foot in the door of healthcare coverage. He'll only be seen as a failure on here and the rhizzone (I repeat myself) Words in bold... yet to be seen / known. ed:fb
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:not being otherwise bound to the party makes the risk to him smaller than you would probably believe. lets say you push ultra-hard, he doesn't cave (remember the article I quoted, his state is insurance capital #1 and he is risking angering his biggest campaign donor and probably employer in his state), and now he's on the GOP's side. not caving and singlehandedly loving over their attempts at reform will probably get you rewarded by both your biggest donor buoying chances at re-election and admiration from the party who opposed the whole thing in the first place. If re-election is an actual concern then it's another area where you're can apply pressure, and it's equally possible to offer carrots in the form of substantial financial support and earmarks (which the Senate had no rules against at that time). I mean ultimately he might be bought and paid for and wouldn't cave, but the Democrats were not without options and didn't use any of them. It's possible it really wasn't actually doable, but there's also not a lot of evidence that anyone made a public option a real priority. e: zegermans posted:Obama's going to be remembered as the dude that took us from 800k job losses per month to 7 straight years of slow but steady growth, without creating an unstable bubble - while at the same time at least getting a foot in the door of healthcare coverage. He'll only be seen as a failure on here and the rhizzone (I repeat myself)  (this is slightly exaggerated since it uses old data- there was growth in reported median income during 2015 and it's now just under where it was in real terms prior to the great recession, but some of that is likely an effect of changed research methodology rather than a real increase and either way that's 7 years of doing badly to just get back to [maybe] where you were, and the geographical distribution has not been even) LGD has issued a correction as of 06:40 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:Words in bold... yet to be seen / known. We've only got a month left of the Obama presidency. I hope the economy can make it that long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The real estate bubble has been building again and silicon valley will probably take huge hits soon, so I'm not sure about that. To add to that there have been no changes in the fundamental wild risk taking nature of Wall Street, so the next collapse is going to be as systemic as the last one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:sir, this is a goodburger sorry if you weren't around for the primary or did so many drugs post-Nov 8 that you can't remember WHO EXACTLY THE gently caress I AM
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The real estate bubble has been building again and silicon valley will probably take huge hits soon, so I'm not sure about that. i'm fully expecting the SV/startups/VC bubble to pop soon and bring everything around it crashing down means i won't be in demand anymore 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:We've only got a month left of the Obama presidency. I hope the economy can make it that long. Economy crashed during Bush... plenty of damage and housing bubble built during Clinton's administration
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:Economy crashed during Bush... plenty of damage and housing bubble built during Clinton's administration Yeah but most people didn't care about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:sorry if you weren't around for the primary or did so many drugs post-Nov 8 that you can't remember nobody cares yo
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
so wait, should there be trigger warnings for "Clinton administration" or are we actually protected by historical insight?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:nobody cares yo realtalk I'm just trying to make sure we don't lose in 2020 and the first steps should be taken on this dead forum
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:so wait, should there be trigger warnings for "Clinton administration" or are we actually protected by historical insight? What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:realtalk I'm just trying to make sure we don't lose in 2020 and the first steps should be taken on this dead forum there's a democrat mobilization thread if you want to take actual concrete steps versus claiming ground on an internet forum thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
logikv9 posted:there's a democrat mobilization thread if you want to take actual concrete steps versus claiming ground on an internet forum thread right here! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800657
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:37
|
|