|
Spiritus Nox posted:Might have given some shakier AHCA votes reason to think that there might one day be actual consequences for passing a lethally terrible healthcare bill? Hopefully they took that lesson from the baseball shooter.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Reik posted:They've only got so much money though, even if they have a lot. When defending a couple specific districts they can raise the resources, but can they when it's every house seat where republicans historically lead by 15 or less? If you assume the deeper red a district is the less amount of money they will need to spend to defend it, how much would they be spending in a district that may only lean +5-7 R historically? That depends on how much the Democrats are spending to contest those races. Ossoff spent around $30m on GA-06, which makes the narrative that Republicans are being forced to shove money into safe seats slightly more complex. This isn't just some random deep red seat, it's a district that Clinton nearly won and that Democrats chose to fight a pitched battle in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:You really think 8-12 points movement towards the left is 100% meaningless? Yes, I do. Call me when it actually leads to a win or to the GOP changing their plans an iota or when it seems remotely likely this will continue to last until 2018 instead of the Democratic voters finding a reason not to vote. The Democrats lost despite pushing tons of money into it. They got nothing out of it. Xombie posted:You are absolutely delusional if you thought they were going to abandon their agenda with an Ossof win. They don't care about proof or winning, they just care about ramming their agenda through. The only thing that can be accomplished is shaking enough of them that the process gets slowed enough to stall for longer. No, I don't actually believe the GOP would be doing all this if they thought there would be actual consequences, or at least not all of them. There are going to be die-hards no matter what but they don't need to lose that many.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Look, tonight wasn't bad. Evidence is pointing to Democrats running 15 points better than normal, evidence that has been kept up for months, and Ossoff winning wouldn't actually mean much more to the strategists who actually know the numbers. The Mueller investigation continues, and they're hiring people fluent in Russian and who are experts in turning witnesses. Look, I understand the need to keep a positive attitude. However, it is a huge problem if a Democratic candidate spends a whopping $22.5 million for a single House seat and still can't win it, despite all this "movement and momentum" you are talking about. Democrats need to openly talk about why Ossoff lost, instead of saying "oh well, in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Republicans really have nothing to hold them back from gutting Medicaid at this point. This was the chance to deliver a clear message to congress that going through with their awful healthcare bill would cause a groundswell of support to form against them. A 5-8% shift won't scare any of the GOP "moderates" to obstruct their party. The nation has effectively declared that we really don't care all that much about poor people losing their healthcare access. It took a lot of time and effort and legislative backlash to get even the most mild of healthcare reform passed under the ACA. It required the dems to have the presidency, congress, and a super majority in the senate to jam it through. The GOP now have a golden opportunity to kick over that sand castle and probably set healthcare coverage back another 20-30 years. Universal Healthcare is already 70ish years delayed in this country and now (for the first time?) we're looking at actively retreating from wider coverage of society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, I don't actually believe the GOP would be doing all this if they thought there would be actual consequences, or at least not all of them. There are going to be die-hards no matter what but they don't need to lose that many. You are also delusional for thinking that the GOP wouldn't sacrifice themselves on the altar of their own bad ideas if they thought they were going to lose the next election anyway. They literally did it with the SCOTUS seat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'm pretty sure the tens of thousands of people who are going to die in the next few years don't feel very comforted at the idea that "progressivism is making some gains" when those gains are "We're not losing AS BADLY as we might have" in a game where anything short of a win is 100% meaningless. Living in Georgia, working with some of the people that went to the polls yesterday to vote Handel, and having the ability to curate some kind of barometer of public opinion, the results yesterday have more to do with showing up to cheer on your team than a referendum on anything else. The margin of victory, as narrow as it was, proves that being "the home team" doesn't really come free gratis anymore to the Republicans. Tribalism takes time to bleed out from people's psyches. I know talented, altruistic, and articulate physicians that went out to vote for Handel yesterday -and- I know people that woke up at noon from a opioid induced haze, stumbled to the 'got-dayum votin boof' because 'dat Ossuf fahgit ain't guna take er' guns n poo poo' then careened in to regional ED's with 10/10 chest pain for some of that sweet, sweet socialized medicine. This is not a campaign about intellectual capacity or pursuing a golden mean for society, this is about modifying behavior that has been ingrained since birth for people. Narrowing that gap shows that some are willing to abandon the rituals that their elders have passed down for generations and in some cases, those rituals have served them quite well. Supplanting who the "home team" is takes time and admittedly takes the home team becoming a losing team and a liability to the fragile ego, but that sensibility is clearly on the defensive right now and eroding slowly. aellisr fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You are also delusional for thinking that the GOP wouldn't sacrifice themselves on the altar of their own bad ideas if they thought they were going to lose the next election anyway. They literally did it with the SCOTUS seat. You mean the SCOTUS seat they won'? Yes, what a great argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It's precisely because they're humans, not machines, that the difference between winning and losing, between maximum consequences and none at all, is orders of magnitude more meaningful than shaving numbers off the margin of victory. Once again, you guys are projecting your own feelings on them, because neither of the consequences results in them completely abandoning their agenda. If they were "emboldened" they'd be having an easier time pushing through legislation, and there is no indication that they have that anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Republicans really have nothing to hold them back from gutting Medicaid at this point. This was the chance to deliver a clear message to congress that going through with their awful healthcare bill would cause a groundswell of support to form against them. A 5-8% shift won't scare any of the GOP "moderates" to obstruct their party. The nation has effectively declared that we really don't care all that much about poor people losing their healthcare access. I'm actually less worried about Medicaid than I am about the damage that Republicans are going to do to employer-sponsored healthcare plans. People really don't remember just how hosed the healthcare situation was in the US pre-ACA, and a rollback of pre-existing conditions protections and a return of lifetime limits is going to gently caress up a huge number of people. Add in healthcare costs that are rising all on their own and I feel like the AHCA has the potential to put us on course for a massive crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You mean the SCOTUS seat they won'? Yes, what a great argument. I mean the SCOTUS seat that they risked handing to Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate instead of approve Obama's moderate pick. Once again I don't think you actually follow politics outside the tweets in this thread, and you show it with every new post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:On the other end of that, though, can the Dems and other left-leaning organizations really pour enough money and candidates into these races to make the danger real or has too much ammunition already been spent? the danger was real in ga-6, they pulled in every senior GOP member including the potus
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Once again, you guys are projecting your own feelings on them, because neither of the consequences results in them completely abandoning their agenda. If they were "emboldened" they'd be having an easier time pushing through legislation, and there is no indication that they have that anywhere. Lol what? They're voting on a universally hated healthcare bill in the next week if reports are to be believed What universe are you posting from
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
The GOP really got to test their GA-6 reflexes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
How many Republican House seats nationwide have a smaller advantage than 8%?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I mean the SCOTUS seat that they risked handing to Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate instead of approve Obama's moderate pick. Pretending to be dumb just to act pedantic doesn't help your argument, hope this helps. They would have just approved Obama's pick a week after the election
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Once again, you guys are projecting your own feelings on them, because neither of the consequences results in them completely abandoning their agenda. If they were "emboldened" they'd be having an easier time pushing through legislation, and there is no indication that they have that anywhere. We need three senators to get cold feet to stop AHCA. We don't need them to "completely abandon their agenda", we need three senators to think that they could conceivably lose their careers to the left. They currently have no compelling reason to think that. Xombie posted:I mean the SCOTUS seat that they risked handing to Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate instead of approve Obama's moderate pick. The whole point is that they didn't! The polls showed a close race all the way through, the GOP made a bet that voter suppression and rank tribalism would see them through, and they were richly rewarded! Their strategy on that one issue will be paying them dividends for decades!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Democrats need to openly talk about why Ossoff lost, instead of saying "oh well, in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal." he lost because this is a majority republican district. anything else is just sour grapes on your part. it's not difficult to understand Spiritus Nox posted:voter suppression there's no evidence of voter suppression last night. please stop fantasizing
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm actually less worried about Medicaid than I am about the damage that Republicans are going to do to employer-sponsored healthcare plans. People really don't remember just how hosed the healthcare situation was in the US pre-ACA, and a rollback of pre-existing conditions protections and a return of lifetime limits is going to gently caress up a huge number of people. Add in healthcare costs that are rising all on their own and I feel like the AHCA has the potential to put us on course for a massive crisis. The optimists in this thread don't care about they. They genuinely don't care about the people who are going to die or suffer or anything of the sort. They just want to cling to "See, it isn't as bad a loss as it could be and even if they won it wouldn't have mattered anyway! The GOP is celebrating because it didn't matter and they didn't care!" Xombie posted:I mean the SCOTUS seat that they risked handing to Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate instead of approve Obama's moderate pick. Pretending to be dumb just to act pedantic doesn't help your argument, hope this helps. You mean the SCOTUS seat they won. Using an example of it paying off perfectly for them isn't actually meaningful. You're also pretending like blocking the Supreme Court seat had any negative impact on them. it emboldened their base and Democratic voters clearly didn't think it was important enough to get out and vote for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes, I do. Call me when it actually leads to a win or to the GOP changing their plans an iota or when it seems remotely likely this will continue to last until 2018 instead of the Democratic voters finding a reason not to vote. Frankly I think the Democrats lost because they pushed tons of money into it. It's a ruby red district, you don't want high turnout, you want low turnout. Don't give the GOP something to rally behind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, chum I hear where you're coming from and the Democratic Party is super dumb if they're excited by these sorts of moral victories, but the only reason that these seats are even open is because the Republican Party knew it would be incredibly difficult for Democrats to take these seats. These special elections are in districts that Republicans won by 20+ points. If we had a special election for one of these seats, we'd be having a very different conversation:  Flipping a little over half of those results in a Democratic majority in the house. B B fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The optimists in this thread don't care about they. They genuinely don't care about the people who are going to die or suffer or anything of the sort. this is a pretty aggressive stance to take for people who aren't tearing their hair out at the concept of a democrat closely losing in a heavy republican district. maybe we should post that suicide hotline number, christ
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I wonder if Ossoff wins if the DNP had downplayed the whole election instead of sending "SUBJECT FW:FW: the Republicans are going to win you tremendous faggo" emailsDietrich posted:Frankly I think the Democrats lost because they pushed tons of money into it. It's a ruby red district, you don't want high turnout, you want low turnout. Don't give the GOP something to rally behind. Yeah. Nothing rallys Republican votes like trolling the D's
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
B B posted:If we had a special election for one of these seats, we'd be having a very different conversation: uh, hate to break it to you but ga-6 is on that map...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
House elections are not referendum on Trump. You have to compare house races to house races.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
So basically, the 2016, election was the chance for Democrats to gain in the House and Senate, they hosed it up, and they won't have a chance to swing it back till 2020 at the earliest? Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
I just don't see the point in flipping the gently caress out about something that can't be changed now. Figure out what you can learn from it, apply that to the future. Don't delude yourself that the situation is either hopeless or that the future is certain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So basically, the 2016, election was the chance for Democrats to gain in the House and Senate, they hosed it up, and they won't have a chance to swing it back till 2020 at the earliest? Well they did gain in both the house and Senate
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:I wonder if Ossoff wins if the DNP had downplayed the whole election instead of sending "SUBJECT FW:FW: the Republicans are going to win you tremendous faggo" emails that's the strategy they took in sc-5 and it didn't work there either with less turnout. but again, they got real close to 50% in a deep red district
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:Lol what? They're voting on a universally hated healthcare bill in the next week if reports are to be believed Nothing in my post contradicts that, bud. Al Borland Corp. posted:They would have just approved Obama's pick a week after the election Only in Democratic fever dreams. Spiritus Nox posted:We need three senators to get cold feet to stop AHCA. We don't need them to "completely abandon their agenda", we need three senators to think that they could conceivably lose their careers to the left. They currently have no compelling reason to think that. You already have more three senators with more than cold feet. There's no indication that has changed. There's no indication beyond peoples' imaginations that anything at all has changed. quote:The whole point is that they didn't! The polls showed a close race all the way through, the GOP made a bet that voter suppression and rank tribalism would see them through, and they were richly rewarded! Their strategy on that one issue will be paying them dividends for decades! Yeah dude they totally seem to be completely confident in their ability to pass legislation. Except where they have to give out hall passes and pull legislation last-minute from the floor despite having all three branches of government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:uh, hate to break it to you but ga-6 is on that map... Lawl. Can't believe I missed that. Either way, there are a lot of opportunities for pockups next year. I do not believe Dems taking over the house is in any way guaranteed, but if Dems get their poo poo together (lol) they do have a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
B B posted:I hear where you're coming from and the Democratic Party is super dumb if they're excited by these sorts of moral victories, but the only reason that these seats are even open is because the Republican Party knew it would be incredibly difficult for Democrats to take these seats. These special elections are in districts that Republicans won by 20+ points. Ossoff underperformed Hillary after a nightmarish 5 months for the GOP, and vast resources at his disposal. When we get to November 2018 and Democrats are being outspent massively across the board, and the Republicans can point to some tax cuts as victories, I'd bet on the GOP retaining their House majority with ease, and picking up some Senate seats in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Look, I understand the need to keep a positive attitude. The literal only reason Democrats put any money into the race was because it was a special election. They will ignore any district like that next year. The lesson they got was that $22.5m bough them a huge Democratic swing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Well they did gain in both the house and Senate Going from 54 republicans to 52 was pretty huge in hindsight. Needing 3 to stop a reconciliation instead of 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So basically, the 2016, election was the chance for Democrats to gain in the House and Senate, they hosed it up, and they won't have a chance to swing it back till 2020 at the earliest? They have a chance to swing the House but not the Senate in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So basically, the 2016, election was the chance for Democrats to gain in the House and Senate, they hosed it up, and they won't have a chance to swing it back till 2020 at the earliest? The House will probably flip in 2018, but the Senate is pretty unlikely before 2020. A "good" outcome in 2018 will be holding Republicans to their current slim majority, but anything more than that is really wishful thinking. I'd say that this doesn't really matter, but it does a little bit since it's two more years for Republicans to potentially replace a Supreme Court judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
B B posted:Lawl. Can't believe I missed that. Either way, there are a lot of opportunities for pockups next year. I do not believe Dems taking over the house is in any way guaranteed, but if Dems get their poo poo together (lol) they do have a chance. The previous house election in GA-6 was GOP +23.2. This election was GOP +3.8. The turnout was bigger than a mid-term. Please grab a hold of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The optimists in this thread don't care about they. They genuinely don't care about the people who are going to die or suffer or anything of the sort. They just want to cling to "See, it isn't as bad a loss as it could be and even if they won it wouldn't have mattered anyway! The GOP is celebrating because it didn't matter and they didn't care!" So what do you want? Every D voter to roll over and die in the face of overwhelming odds?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Ossoff underperformed Hillary after a nightmarish 5 months for the GOP, and vast resources at his disposal. When we get to November 2018 and Democrats are being outspent massively across the board, and the Republicans can point to some tax cuts as victories, I'd bet on the GOP retaining their House majority with ease, and picking up some Senate seats in the process. no he didn't? we dont know exactly how hillary did in the 6th since that district didn't vote for electors (fulton county did) but ossof greatly outperformed the dem on the ballot in 2016 during the general, and came within a few dozen votes of topping all time dem turnout for the district in a special election if you're going to freak out and get angry at least try to be factually correct while you're doing so instead of just making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:this is a pretty aggressive stance to take for people who aren't tearing their hair out at the concept of a democrat closely losing in a heavy republican district. maybe we should post that suicide hotline number, christ No it isn't. The people who keep clinging to optimism and "it's going to be okay, it's just SADBRAINS" are actively damaging. They don't actually have an iota of empathy for the people who are looking at either losing every bit of money they have or dying in the upcoming years. Half the posts in this thread are people being super smug and happy that people are upset and unhappy about the fact they are going to probably die and calling those people 'sadbrains' and broken. I'm not particularly sure why I should read that as anything but sheer delight over the suffering of others because those others aren't going "This is good news... for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY" after the Democrats threw money hand over fist into a lost race. The argument wants to at once be "it was close, they could have won" and "Well they never really could have won in the first place, why would you expect that?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:02
|
|