|
Thaddius the Large posted:Not to nitpick, but if the point about Mitch denying any bipartisan opportunity is true, wouldn’t voters have therefore punished the Republicans at the polls for the obstructionism? I don’t have a coherent answer, I just don’t see why Democrats have to be bipartisan because voters like it, while Republicans get to be as partisan as they drat well please lest the whole country fall to the gay socialist undocumented immigrant hordes or whatever. So it's two things. First, Mitch's insight was that low-information voters us a heuristic that "partisan = bad; bipartisan = good". Not those in general: that if a law is passed on a "bipartisan" basis the law is a good one and if the law is passed on a "partisan" basis, it is a bad one. So refusing to supply a single vote for Obamacare - even if a Republican could have gotten changes they would have liked - was in his interests, because it would make people assume Obamacare was bad, and if there was a single Republican vote they would assume it was good. So by denying Obama any votes on anything - even if it would be good and would pass - he made Obama's stuff look worse in the eyes of low-information voters. Second, low-information voters blame everything on the President. If there's gridlock in DC, by definition the President and Congress are not getting along, and low-information voters will default to that it's the President's fault. Note that "low-information voter" isn't an insult, or some "sheeeeeeeeeeeple" sort of thing. Most people do not closely follow politics because they're too busy, they don't find it interesting, etc. They get some information on politics effectively by osmosis - they see some headlines, hear some bits and pieces here and there, and so they get some information but not a complete picture. These people are not carefully scrutinizing policy papers or weighing policy positions, they're making a gut instinct call on who they like and don't like. This is a lot of the voting public, and so messaging so that the bits and pieces of information those people get is important because you're trying to bias them towards or against you. This is also why "he seems like one of us" is so powerful. So that's where the whole "bipartisan" thing matters. Not with people who closely follow politics (though many of those people pretend to care or have, through willful ignorance of the asymmetric polarization of the parties, defaulted to the "the truth is in the middle"), but with people who don't. What many people, including in this thread, support is effectively turning low information voters into higher-information voters by exciting them about politics. That is also a good approach and is probably much more important - which is why it's important that the "bipartisan" messaging be messaging and not reality. Don't sacrifice things that are important to get good headlines, both because you'll discourage these potential high-information voters and because good things are also important to low-information voters - good economic policy, for example, leaves people happier. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 9, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:To most people, bipartisanship means that the other party should give into my party's demands. Thats it. Its not a general outpouring of support for centrist policy, its that everyone thinks the other side should come to their senses. Problem is, the Republican leadership seems to get that better than the Democratic leadership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:Not to nitpick, but if the point about Mitch denying any bipartisan opportunity is true, wouldn’t voters have therefore punished the Republicans at the polls for the obstructionism? I don’t have a coherent answer, I just don’t see why Democrats have to be bipartisan because voters like it, while Republicans get to be as partisan as they drat well please lest the whole country fall to the gay socialist undocumented immigrant hordes or whatever. Yeah, I seem to recall that the Tea Party campaigned pretty hard on being partisan, so there were definitely people that wanted partisanship. But for other voters, one can't really assume said voters will try to find nuance instead of just blaming the biggest figurehead in politics. I think Mitch understands how little effort a large segment of the population will put into researching politics. That fact is also probably why some Republicans have embraced lying aggressively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Radish posted:If Obama got his grand bargain people wouldn't be happy both sides worked together to slash entitlements. People want bipartisanship when it results in something good because the alternative is deadlock as everything slowly gets shittier. Bipartisan as it is used by politicians usually means working together regardless of outcome and acting like the act of cooperation is inherently good. I don't think anyone is going to agree with the statement "I am happy that the result is bad," but the actual poll question says that bipartisanship would result in you not getting everything you want and people still said that they would take that scenario over standing for principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
The people counting votes are in very real danger. The chuds are all riled up and there's a non zero chance they kill somone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/muhmentions/status/1060969285273698304
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't think anyone is going to agree with the statement "I am happy that the result is bad," but the actual poll question says that bipartisanship would result in you not getting everything you want and people still said that they would take that scenario over standing for principle. ...which is pretty abstract. Give them a specific example and you'd see a lot less support for bipartisanship, guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Unfortunately, no. this was a really good article on the way in which the third way people are deliberately misrepresenting average americans as lusting for bipartisanship, instead of highlighting their actual views. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/on-safari-in-trumps-america/543288/
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:...which is pretty abstract. Give them a specific example and you'd see a lot less support for bipartisanship, guaranteed. yeah, but that's why pelosi said "bipartisanship" but with no actual examples (and being careful to say that bipartisanship wouldn't be a reason to give up things important to democrats)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:To most people, bipartisanship means that the other party should give into my party's demands. Thats it. Its not a general outpouring of support for centrist policy, its that everyone thinks the other side should come to their senses. Yeah this as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So it's two things. First, Mitch's insight was that low-information voters us a heuristic that "partisan = bad; bipartisan = good". Not those in general: that if a law is passed on a "bipartisan" basis the law is a good one and if the law is passed on a "partisan" basis, it is a bad one. So refusing to supply a single vote for Obamacare - even if a Republican could have gotten changes they would have liked - was in his interests, because it would make people assume Obamacare was bad, and if there was a single Republican vote they would assume it was good. So by denying Obama any votes on anything - even if it would be good and would pass - he made Obama's stuff look worse in the eyes of low-information voters. Schumer let Manchin give bipartisan cover to Brett loving Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, but that's why pelosi said "bipartisanship" but with no actual examples If she does eventually put up some terrible bipartisanship bill that gets passed, like say the wall in exchange for infrastructure and budgets, would you then admit that the criticism of her comments were valid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
pelosi must end every speech with "moreover i consider that the gop must be destroyed".
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, but that's why pelosi said "bipartisanship" but with no actual examples I get that, but I'm not sure Pelosi's record actually reflects a "bipartisanship is when you agree with me; partisanship is what you're doing when you refuse to agree with me" attitude, as you've claimed. The way she and Schumer handled the DACA gambit just last year doesn't really inspire confidence in me, or most leftists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Schumer let Manchin give bipartisan cover to Brett loving Kavanaugh. Man are you going to have an egg on your face when Schumer lets loose all the political capital he gained from that
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Listen, bipartisanship is dumb and only exists on the West Wing. But pretending like voters don't like it or want it is just flat out wrong. And this is why it's important for Pelosi to at least give lip service to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ToddRon/status/1060956453022900224 this is my favorite response there
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
ladies, fellas, let us come together over schumer being not only useless but actively detrimental.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:pelosi must end every speech with "moreover i consider that the gop must be destroyed". carthago delenda est
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Florida has very specific rules on recounts because of the utter mess that was the 2000 recount, so that there are strict deadlines, strict rules, and as little wiggle room as possible. Yep. We responded to loving up 2000 by ensuring we gently caress up every consequent election. GOP tactics is to delay and stall, running out the clock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Schumer let Manchin give bipartisan cover to Brett loving Kavanaugh. Schumer didn't "let" Manchin do anything, he doesn't have the ability to force Manchin to do anything. There is no leverage that Schumer had over Manchin that was stronger than Manchin's views about what was most likely to secure his own re-election. Schumer can try to persuade, but he can't force. Trabisnikof posted:If she does eventually put up some terrible bipartisanship bill that gets passed, like say the wall in exchange for infrastructure and budgets, would you then admit that the criticism of her comments were valid? if she does a terrible thing then i will agree that the terrible thing is bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Listen, bipartisanship is dumb and only exists on the West Wing. But pretending like voters don't like it or want it is just flat out wrong. Which, again, would be fine, if the Democratic leadership hadn't gained a firm reputation for rolling over at the drop of a hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If she does eventually put up some terrible bipartisanship bill that gets passed, like say the wall in exchange for infrastructure and budgets, would you then admit that the criticism of her comments were valid? This is what the House Dems and Pelosi put out as their goals for the first months once they take the House. I bolded the parts where they talk about bipartisanship: quote:- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is poised to work with House Democrats to set up a special committee focused on climate change in the new Democratic-led Congress, a panel that would allow the party's members on Capitol Hill to draw attention to the threat posed by of global warming. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I get that, but I'm not sure Pelosi's record actually reflects a "bipartisanship is when you agree with me; partisanship is what you're doing when you refuse to agree with me" attitude, as you've claimed. The way she and Schumer handled the DACA gambit just last year doesn't really inspire confidence in me, or most leftists. The DACA gambit as "the wall in exchange for the Dream Act" or the shutdown to try to force a vote on the Dream Act?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The DACA gambit as "the wall in exchange for the Dream Act" or the shutdown to try to force a vote on the Dream Act? The former, which was actually "the wall in exchange for possibly talking about the Dream Act sometime down the road, which actually didn't materialize." The latter was Schumer's fuckup, ie: going with the shutdown and then chickening out halfway through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:carthago delenda est Trumptards delenda est (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which, again, would be fine, if the Democratic leadership hadn't gained a firm reputation for rolling over at the drop of a hat. I'm not arguing that, and not saying you shouldn't be worried that it will happen again. I'm just saying that paying lip service to bipartisanship is a good move whether you end up rolling over or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:https://twitter.com/ToddRon/status/1060956453022900224 i always like the counter proposal that nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote because they're going to die soon and thus have no skin in the game
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is what the House Dems and Pelosi put out as their goals for the first months once they take the House. I bolded the parts where they talk about bipartisanship: Do you have an actual source for this? You post stuff all the time without sourcing and given your uh, history, I'm sort of skeptical to believe anything you quote without a source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I'm not arguing that, and not saying you shouldn't be worried that it will happen again. I'm just saying that paying lip service to bipartisanship is a good move whether you end up rolling over or not. If it doesn't actually gain you any support (and I don't think it will, since like I said, everyone who loves Pelosi talking about bipartisanship is a Democrat at this point), and makes the people you need to energize think that you're just going to roll over again, then it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Listen, bipartisanship is dumb and only exists on the West Wing. But pretending like voters don't like it or want it is just flat out wrong. When you look at the responses, its clear that while a plurality prefer compromise, almost as many support no compromise or very little compromise:  evilweasel posted:if she does a terrible thing then i will agree that the terrible thing is bad! Your argument has been that we should ignore Pelosi's statements about bipartisanship because its just meaningless, designed to placate certain voters. If she actually does lovely bipartisan legislation then that argument falls apart. If she does lovely bipartisan legislation then her critics were correct to be concerned by her comments. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:ladies, fellas, let us come together over schumer being not only useless but actively detrimental. I don't there is anyone in this thread who disagrees with that. At least Pelosi has known useful skills
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:this was a really good article on the way in which the third way people are deliberately misrepresenting average americans as lusting for bipartisanship, instead of highlighting their actual views. i love articles like that "but why are they blaming the republicans for destroying union rights????"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So it's two things. First, Mitch's insight was that low-information voters us a heuristic that "partisan = bad; bipartisan = good". Not those in general: that if a law is passed on a "bipartisan" basis the law is a good one and if the law is passed on a "partisan" basis, it is a bad one. So refusing to supply a single vote for Obamacare - even if a Republican could have gotten changes they would have liked - was in his interests, because it would make people assume Obamacare was bad, and if there was a single Republican vote they would assume it was good. So by denying Obama any votes on anything - even if it would be good and would pass - he made Obama's stuff look worse in the eyes of low-information voters. So, if I’m interpreting this correctly, he was successful because the Republicans lacked power both in Congress and the Presidency, and would fail to stop the Dems, so it cost them nothing to be partisan. By that logic, wouldn’t it have behooved the Democrats to do the same for all Republican votes over the last 2 years? Obviously they did for healthcare and whatnot, but doing the Manchin fandango every time a nomination came up was pretty exhausting, and the argument that “he has to play centrist because it’s what his voters want” doesn’t seem to support the “partisanship by minority parties works” idea. And, lest it be lost, I appreciate the detailed answer! I’m rarely good at teasing out these things, helps to have someone work through it/spell it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The former, which was actually "the wall in exchange for possibly talking about the Dream Act sometime down the road, which actually didn't materialize." as Trump didn't get the wall, i don't know what nonsense you're talking about here but it's not backed up by reality. the deal offered was wall funding tied to the signing into law of the Dream Act, which was first accepted and then (once Miller got to Trump) rejected. they know how to write legislation that does two things, that is how deals are done: you don't pass one then the other, you pass a bill that does both things at once so you can't get cheated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Listen, bipartisanship is dumb and only exists on the West Wing. But pretending like voters don't like it or want it is just flat out wrong. I don't think this is whole story. People mostly like the idea of compromise, but not so much the reality. If you ask them about specific issues that are important to them, then they'll want their representatives to fight tooth-and-nail and be pissed if they don't, especially if compromises severely limit the effectiveness of legislation. They might be willing to accept compromise on issues that are less important to them (but important to other people). E: That's why politicians talk about compromise more often than actually engaging in it (and it also helps frame your political opponents as the uncompromising ones). Stickman fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When you look at the responses, its clear that while a plurality prefer compromise, almost as many support no compromise or very little compromise: 50 > 22
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:So, if I’m interpreting this correctly, he was successful because the Republicans lacked power both in Congress and the Presidency, and would fail to stop the Dems, so it cost them nothing to be partisan. By that logic, wouldn’t it have behooved the Democrats to do the same for all Republican votes over the last 2 years? Obviously they did for healthcare and whatnot, but doing the Manchin fandango every time a nomination came up was pretty exhausting, and the argument that “he has to play centrist because it’s what his voters want” doesn’t seem to support the “partisanship by minority parties works” idea. And, lest it be lost, I appreciate the detailed answer! I’m rarely good at teasing out these things, helps to have someone work through it/spell it out. Until January 2021 the Democrats can't actually stop a unified GOP Congress from doing things (assuming Mitch blows up the filibuster, which he hasn't, possibly because he doesn't have the votes). In particular, the filibuster's already gone for nominees. The only thing Democrats could do without Republican votes is clog up the process by not waiving debate time, which they've (generally) done. a month or two ago people here flipped out because Schumer waived debate on a dozen judicial nominees in exchange for something I can't recall
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
axeil posted:Do you have an actual source for this? You post stuff all the time without sourcing and given your uh, history, I'm sort of skeptical to believe anything you quote without a source. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/climate-change-committee-democrats-congress-pelosi/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.18dfaa428188 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/us/politics/democrats-midterm-elections.html There's a full interview going into details about it that already aired last night on CNN. https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/sta...si.house.gov%2F
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Schumer didn't "let" Manchin do anything, he doesn't have the ability to force Manchin to do anything. There is no leverage that Schumer had over Manchin that was stronger than Manchin's views about what was most likely to secure his own re-election. Schumer can try to persuade, but he can't force. Does your political theory offer any predictions? It only seems capable of making excuses for the continued failure to achieve anything of consequence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:15
|
|