|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:An admin asked the OP to close the thread for some reason. So it's not his fault. It was obviously a bad joke.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Sexual Aluminum posted:Montana is having their election with Quist on the ticket in two days right? Does he have a chance? Yes. A recent poll had him down 4, and his GOP opponent has been clearly collapsing for the last few weeks. (used to be more like down 15 which is why the DNC didn't spend much money) 4 points in a low-turnout special election is not nothing, but it can be overcome. I'd say Quist has about a 25% chance.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Fun fact: today is world turtle day. (insert obvious McConnell joke here)
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Only about 2 hours to go until the daily hour of news madness. If you've still got some work to do today, finish up now.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Its 5:30pm ET, where the hell is my Trump news?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
CBO score comes out tomorrow. The reason why it took so long is its one of the most complicated analysis they've had to do in a while because they have to try and predict which states might decide to opt out, which is hard https://twitter.com/politico/status/867136469516857345
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:We're building up a tolerance for big news bombshells. By july we're going to be scouring city council reports from rural backwaters looking for any bits of drama to share, and then scratching our necks up in frustration when it isn't enough to get our fix. "JAPAN BOMBS HAWAII!" pfft, weak, come on what's the real news?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
wow. Based on those two state-level special elections, my opinion on Rob Quist for Thursday went from about 25% to coin flip. He might actually win Montana's seat.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Minor note: the longest-serving governor of any state in the history of the country (Terry Branstad, Iowa, about 22.5 years) just resigned to become ambassador to China.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:But with little regulation people who jump on scam plans will still get subsidies won't they? and this is why a lot of people are speculating that the house will be forced to vote for it again. The feds might spend so much money helping people buy poo poo insurance that it may violate reconciliation rules.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Regarding Trump not liking the 4 candidates and starting over on his FBI director search, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump asked each of them to swear an oath of loyalty and start yelling that the Russia probe is fake news, and all 4 of them went "uhhh..... no, this job was supposed to be politically independent so I won't do that."
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yup. I made this point the other day re: right-winger dipshits and transgender people. The morons tend to be old, and a lot of millennials who were raised to be Republican are defecting to the left as they realize that their parents don't have their poo poo together. The problem will literally die.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
RiggenBlaque posted:I was thinking along the same lines and I think what scares me is that the Republican rank and file is so willing to go along with anything Trump does that all he needs to do is find one shill willing to pledge his loyalty and that's it. And how hard can it be to find that one guy when you're completely uninterested in finding someone who is actually experienced and competent enough for that position? If Trump is doing this, then he'll eventually find a stooge, but its difficult because you either need to be old and not give a gently caress about your legacy, or you need to be monumentally stupid. Anyone with half a brain knows Trump is going down in flames (it takes a while because federal investigations always take years and this started last July), and your career will be shot to pieces after Trump's downfall if you acted like his loyal subject as FBI director.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Supremezero posted:I suppose they might think that, but it's absolutely not. Pretty sure the guy who's the stand-in is out for Trump's blood. yep, everything I've read suggests that most of the FBI believes they are at war with Trump and want to take him down. Not having his own FBI director in there to contain them is not a good thing at all for Trump.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
This may be correct, but the 21% who are STILL with him now are either not paying any attention at all, or they will be bitter enders. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/867419203065835520
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
GOP is playing the low expectations game for tomorrow, trying to set it up so they can spin any victory, even a couple points, as good news. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/24/montana-special-election-quist-gianforte-238746
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Does Quist have any shot at all? Are the votes even there? Its shockingly close for a state like this. Quist was down 4 last poll we heard from. If the GOP turnout is fine, then Quist probably loses, but thats the big question. If Trump is depressing turnout then people who are telling pollsters they plan to vote for Gianforte might not bother to get out of bed and Quist wins.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:One thing is for certain: If he loses, this thread will have half a dozen posters LOSING THEIR MINDS about how the Democrats are DEFINITELY doomed forever Here's a slim-to-none possibility no one is thinking about right now. What if the polls and turnout model end up being significantly wrong the other way? What if Quist wins and its not even close, like 53-44, something crazy like that. The GOP would immediately go into a double drudge siren blind panic. OK, I'm done dreaming, back to hoping Quist barely wins by half a point after a recount.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
botany posted:yeah trump may also sprout wings from his rear end and fly into the sun so on average we're good i think That is just absurd. You can't fly with rear end wings.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
This is like a direct hit by a hurricane. Lots of speculation and noise, then silence at 3:30 ET as the eye passes over us and everyone is furiously reading as fast as they can, then twitter blows up as the other side hits
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
5 minutes
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
This is an outrage, they are one minute late and counting. I need my score!
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Its up https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
It does appear that it will be reconciliation-compatible. No house revote needed, I think. It saves a bit less money than the last evil bill, but saves enough. Slightly fewer people will be uninsured in evil bill #2 than in evil bill #1, but its still a horrifically evil bill. edit: oh poo poo long-term its way worse on uninsured
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
The CBO summary acidly remarked that they aren't counting people who buy the poo poo insurance the GOP will offer as being insured.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/867479735915466752 This was the surprise. We kinda expected it would cover slightly more people than the original bill and save a bit less money, but I don't know that anyone including the GOP expected a 20% premium hike in 2018.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:If I'm reading it right, premiums would go down about 4% in half the country (by 2026), 20% in about 1/3rd of the country, and "we have no idea" down in the remaining 6th. Well yeah, if you tell the unhealthy people to go gently caress off and die, then insurance will be cheaper to buy for everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The CBO did not attempt to determine what states would ask for waivers. Seems reasonable. They probably started with New York and California at 0% chance of asking for a waiver, Alabama at maybe 80%, and then figured out the expected average.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
The GOP may have been hoping the media would announce "hey, it got a little better, 1 million more people insured!" Instead, the media is blaring 23 million will lose coverage by 2026 in 80-point font.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Assuming that 1% might be wealthy enough to get a tax break, 25% of the country are loving morons. Seems about right. https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/867484408764346368
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I do not think he is correct at all
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:He deleted his tweet after it was pointed out that he was probably wrong, and it did meet the reconciliation threshold It didn't just meet it, it blew past the minimum requirement. It needed to save 2 billion or more over 10 years, and the saving runs 12 digits. (by literally letting people die and pocketing the money instead of spending money to save their lives)
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
gently caress your stupid rag. Who even buys your paper anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Ekster posted:So when's the senate going to vote on it? This bill will never pass the Senate. They may or may not vote for something else, but McConnell said this morning that he wasn't sure how to get to 50 on any health care bill. The score was eagerly anticipated by political nerds like us, and Democrat ad writers needed to know what number to fill in the blank for next year's attack ads.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Quist is running heavily on healthcare, isn't he? And the special election is tomorrow? Yes, he's pretty much ignored Trump and Russia and has been hammering his opponent on health care.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:What did the deleted tweet say? It said that the bill failed reconciliation requirements and needed to be revoted in the house. A few people celebrated but most people were confused and went "uhhh, no it didn't. You are wrong, explain please".
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Could we please not link to tweets without providing the text so the next time this happens it's not three pages of other people asking what the original now-deleted tweet said? No. Posting only the link is convenient, I'm fine with the drawback of people later asking what it says the rare times when it is deleted.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Doesn't it literally not lower rates according to the CBO? It only increases rates in the short term. Eventually, after you tell the old and sick people to gently caress off and die, then rates will be lower for everyone else who survives.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
In other news, Sasse is very concerned. https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/867489599144292353
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Paul Ryan is really, really, really, really, really bad at actual policy but thinks he's good at it from years of washinton reporters not realizing his idiot policies don't add up. They are also putting their monolithic base to the test. Will their most loyal, active voters still say "fake news! MAGA" and vote GOP while the GOP is actively killing them to pay for tax cuts? I guess we'll see. We don't actually need old morons to win back the house, but if they cracked and actually woke up to the fact that the GOP is pretty evil, then the GOP would be well and truly hosed.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:27
|
|