|
https://twitter.com/consequence/status/1060904628504719360?s=19 E: this totally counts as dog tax
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
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 believe the operative question is, what kind of voter cares about bipartisanship, and why does Pelosi et al have a vested interest in appealing to that kind of voter specifically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/climate-change-committee-democrats-congress-pelosi/index.html Thanks for this Leon, appreciate the sourcing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:50 > 22 I wouldn't lump the 1's and 2's together so readily. It's not a scale with a lot of granularity to it, but it's easy to read it as only a third of voters live or die by bipartisanship; everyone else is opposed or squishy on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LilCalamityJane/status/1060908815992918016
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. You're missing that there was a timetable for the Dream Act. When Pelosi and Schumer had the opportunity to take a hard line towards the end of the year and tie it to budget negotiations, they backed down pretty publicly, only attempting the shutdown after they had surrendered a lot of their leverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Stickman posted: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). People said nobody cares about bipartisanship. Polls show otherwise. That's all I'm saying. I think it's something that is worthy of giving lip service to, simply because it makes these compromise lovers go  Again, we can disagree over whether Pelosi talking about bipartisanship is a good move or not, but my original point (that it gets voters' dicks hard) stands, and I believe I've backed up that argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
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. the poll question is very leading quote:Is it more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done or is it more important for political leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
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. Boy mitch sure paid for that when the republicans got slaughtered in the 2010 midterms!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
If pelosi says WE SHOULD BE BIPARTISAN and then isn't then i'll be down with it because that's essentially what mitch has done for his entire career if she actually is bipartisan then gently caress her
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
probably already posted but this is wild. https://twitter.com/cd_hooks/status/1060675993579503616
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
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. That is a big reason that Obamacare repeal and the Republican taxcuts got zero Democratic votes, and is why the tax cuts are the least popular tax cuts in history and are less popular than some tax hikes. But Manchin has two interests: he wants the Republican party to be less popular, but he's also from West Virginia and he wants to be re-elected. Red state democrats had to weigh, for each vote, what would hurt Republicans vs. what would hurt their own re-election (which required getting some number of crossover voters who previously voted for Trump). How to strike that balance is really tricky and some Democrats did it well, some obviously didn't and got crushed on Tuesday. Mitch, in 2008, had the advantage that he had no senators that were as vulnerable as Schumer had this year. Mitch basically had to wrangle the two Maine senators (neither up for re-election in 2010, so they didn't have a strong need to position for re-election and could take votes their constituents would not like and hope they forgot them by 2012/2014) and Maine is not that blue. Schumer had five senators, all up for re-election this year, to wrangle that were from solid red states (Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heiticamp, Tester). So Mitch had a much easier time avoiding any defections than Schumer has had this term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I believe the operative question is, what kind of voter cares about bipartisanship, and why does Pelosi et al have a vested interest in appealing to that kind of voter specifically? The answer is.....moderates and liberals.  Also, this graph should be called WhyConservativesWin.jpeg
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:People said nobody cares about bipartisanship. Polls show otherwise. That's all I'm saying. I think it's something that is worthy of giving lip service to, simply because it makes these compromise lovers go It's a good point (and I guess pretty much the one I was trying to make). I probably should have read back a few pages, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:https://twitter.com/consequence/status/1060904628504719360?s=19 It's not a crime in DC as long as he isn't on federal property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Pelosi is obscenely wealthy, why would you ever trust her to represent your interests
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I believe the operative question is, what kind of voter cares about bipartisanship, and why does Pelosi et al have a vested interest in appealing to that kind of voter specifically? low-information voters, and they have a vested interest in appealing to that kind of voter because there are lots of them doing so with rhetoric only is ideal, because then you appeal to them without alienating high-information voters
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Mmm yes everyone remembers when Obama got in and Mitch announced openly that the GOP's goal was to simply deny him a functioning government on principle of him being a Conservatives, as it turns out, don't care about compromise. Please see my previous post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The answer is.....moderates and liberals. Well perhaps more specifically, the "Panera Bread" (christ I hate that this is what we're calling it) suburban vote that Democrats have been chasing since 1992. I imagine if you only polled people making <80,000 dollars with less leading questions you would get very different answers to these questions. edit: < is not >
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Does your political theory offer any predictions? It only seems capable of making excuses for the continued failure to achieve anything of consequence. that things you say are factually wrong, based on observable, present facts, isn't an issue of prediction. people frequently just don't get that the senate leader has limited power to make other senators do what he wants, and you made that mistake. that is not a political theory question, that's a basic observable fact regarding the senate that has been true for both parties for a long time for example: mitch mcconnell, a majority leader usually very good at wrangling his caucus, could not wrangle 50 votes for obamacare repeal because he has limited ability to force collins/murkowski and others to do things they don't want to do. he can try to persuade/bribe/cajole them and it sometimes works, but sometimes not!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Well perhaps more specifically, the "Panera Bread" (christ I hate that this is what we're calling it) suburban vote that Democrats have been chasing since 1992. well, those voters just delivered us the house. like, i get why people eyerolled over them after 2016 but the fact of the matter is that they just did break for democrats, and them breaking for democrats was how we got the house back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:https://twitter.com/consequence/status/1060904628504719360?s=19 I hope Jeff Sessions was doing a sad Charlie Brown walk nearby and had to check himself into the ER to be sure he hadn't been weed-poisoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
eke out posted:here's new reporting quote:Mr. Cohen asked American Media to buy Ms. Clifford’s story. Mr. Pecker refused on the grounds that he didn’t want his company to pay a porn star. Ah yes, that bastion of journalism with such High Ethical Standards the *checks notes* National Enquirer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:low-information voters, and they have a vested interest in appealing to that kind of voter because there are lots of them problem: many people in the us are poorly informed about politics leftists: we should offer policies that benefit everyone and push for more political engagement liberals: let them eat bipartisanship
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:well, those voters just delivered us the house. like, i get why people eyerolled over them after 2016 but the fact of the matter is that they just did break for democrats, and them breaking for democrats was how we got the house back. This is true, but then the question becomes, what kind of policy will a Democratic Party beholden to upper middle class white suburbanites who want "bipartisanship" craft in the face of ever more pressing global warming and economic collapse? And therein lies the rub.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
The POTUS is claiming that an election is being stolen and that the same county would have stole the election from him, if given the chance. The governor running for Senator agrees. What a world. The truth must be in the middle here of course. Now is the time for measured and reasoned compromise. Decorum_Hitler_Cartoon.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Ah yes, that bastion of journalism with such High Ethical Standards the *checks notes* National Enquirer. pecker refuses to perform for donald trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-I0MDteZQ I get whiplash parsing that accent with the message. Are there good rednecks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Pelosi is obscenely wealthy, why would you ever trust her to represent your interests FDR was 100x more wealthy. Bernie Sanders is also a multi-millionaire and has almost the same net worth as Pelosi. If you include spouses, then Pelosi scoots ahead of Bernie because her husband inherited a real estate business. Personal net worth is a weird way to determine honesty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:The POTUS is claiming that an election is being stolen and that the same county would have stole the election from him, if given the chance. The governor running for Senator agrees. What a world. The truth must be in the middle here of course. Now is the time for measured and reasoned compromise. Decorum_Hitler_Cartoon.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:The POTUS is claiming that an election is being stolen and that the same county would have stole the election from him, if given the chance. The governor running for Senator agrees. What a world. The truth must be in the middle here of course. Now is the time for measured and reasoned compromise. Decorum_Hitler_Cartoon.jpg and it's the same state they stole to steal a presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
honestly i agree with snoop dogg here
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that things you say are factually wrong, based on observable, present facts, isn't an issue of prediction. people frequently just don't get that the senate leader has limited power to make other senators do what he wants, and you made that mistake. that is not a political theory question, that's a basic observable fact regarding the senate that has been true for both parties for a long time Did the DNC have a choice in whether or not it backed Manchin throughout his primary, or were their hands tied there as well? Did Tom Perez have a choice when he said that Democrats who voted for Kavanaugh wouldn't face consequences from the party? Does the Democratic Party have any responsibility at all for the actions of its politicians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
Actually it's probably got an r-squared of 0.999999, for the whole human population, it's just not universally true
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is true, but then the question becomes, what kind of policy will a Democratic Party beholden to upper middle class white suburbanites who want "bipartisanship" craft in the face of ever more pressing global warming and economic collapse? yeah, but nobody is arguing in favor of democrats limiting themselves to "bipartisanship." we are arguing in favor of saying the word bipartisanship, because it makes those voters happy without having to actually be bipartisan. it's found money, basically. if those voters rebel when democrats gain power and pass important legislation on a partisan basis, well, that legislation remains on the books even if they vote democrats out of the House. and if the only way to get the House was with those voters, well, then it wasn't getting passed without giving them lip service long enough. and if you can keep the house afterwards while losing them, well, you increased your odds of getting that stuff done in the first place and perhaps got a few senators out of the bargain you'll keep through 2026. plus, if you keep those people through 2020, even if they defect in 2022 you still got them for the key redistricting election so maybe you don't need them anymore thanks to undoing gerrymanders or imposing pro-dem gerrymanders 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Well perhaps more specifically, the "Panera Bread" (christ I hate that this is what we're calling it) suburban vote that Democrats have been chasing since 1992. Pretty sure that way less than 54% of Americans make over $80k per year. If you look at the data, it is richer and whiter people who like bipartisanship less. Poorer and non-white voters like it more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:problem: many people in the us are poorly informed about politics false dichotomies are fun!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Bernie Sanders is also a multi-millionaire and has almost the same net worth as Pelosi. If you include spouses, then Pelosi scoots ahead of Bernie because her husband inherited a real estate business. she's worth 8-12 times what he is. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
cite for these numbers because I'm fairly sure you are not correct at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 20:35
|
|
