I don't know if it's that stupid, politically speaking at least. What's the harder lift: corralling 50 Republican votes in a matter of days to pass through whatever healthcare bill happens to be on deck? Or dragging out months and months of public scrutiny and media coverage about the tens of millions of people who are going to lose health coverage because of that plan? Clearly the former was too hard (but just barely) but I can't imagine the latter would be any easier.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if it's that stupid, politically speaking at least. What's the harder lift: corralling 50 Republican votes in a matter of days to pass through whatever healthcare bill happens to be on deck? Or dragging out months and months of public scrutiny and media coverage about the tens of millions of people who are going to lose health coverage because of that plan? Clearly the former was too hard (but just barely) but I can't imagine the latter would be any easier.
Randolph Freelander
Member
The point is you have to win a lot of seats that were not even within single digits in 2016. And don't mess up and lose a seat that was within single digits, and don't lose one of your own seats, because then the wall just got higher with yet more double digit seats now needed. With maps heavily favoring Republicans as a result of the 2010 wave.
I don't expect much of 2018 and I'll not be convinced otherwise, certainly not a year out. But regardless of what happens next year, Democrats need a 2020 wave at the state level so they can redraw the maps to something where districts are actually competitive.
There are cost-effective ways to get both the efficiency of electronic voting and the reliability of paper voting.
The voting machine prints a ballot which the voter verifies, folds up and stuffs in a box.
Results are computed from electronic ballots, but a small percentage of paper ballot boxes are randomly selected, counted and cross-checked with electronic totals. If there are discrepancies then you'd do more cross-checking.
As long as the mechanism to randomly pick the boxes is safe (this is what lotteries do, so it's a solved problem) the chance that a hack will go undetected is very small.
The voting machine prints a ballot which the voter verifies, folds up and stuffs in a box.
Results are computed from electronic ballots, but a small percentage of paper ballot boxes are randomly selected, counted and cross-checked with electronic totals. If there are discrepancies then you'd do more cross-checking.
As long as the mechanism to randomly pick the boxes is safe (this is what lotteries do, so it's a solved problem) the chance that a hack will go undetected is very small.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Yeah, I guess we could ask to use the 2000 maps and hope for Trump to have two unpopular wars and a Katrina on his hands by this time next year, because that would be awesome for everyone.
Listen, I'm pessimistic about 2018. Democrats are at an inherent disadvantage in midterms, them's just the breaks. Yes, they overcame it in 2006, maybe they can do it again. I don't expect it.
And regardless of how popular any given ACA repeal bill is, Republicans still want it repealed, so Republican lawmakers are still going to try to do it again and again and again. With any luck, they'll continue to fail through 2018, and then we'll see what happens in 2019. Your optimism better prove to be true, because if Republicans hold their ground and gain a seat or three in the Senate, repeal in 2019 is going to be a cakewalk.
I have to imagine that they are thinking 2019 and maybe trying to use ACA one last time in midterm elections. Honestly, if they didn't have a plan to repeal it from the get go, they should have waited till 2019 and sabotaged ACA in other ways to get people to turn against it, and then repeal it.
With McCain's vote this is basically a done deal. Paul's not gonna be the Senator who saved ACA.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I would argue that spreading it out over a long period of time may be more effective in one sense: I think people get tired easily. The backlash would be strong at the beginning, but I wonder how much of that would tail off if they delayed votes and kept stringing it along.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The system isn't going to work for this bill. If it was, they would have already tried using it. Once it hits committees, gets multiple CBO reports, input from various industries, stuff like that, it won't make it out alive.
Time has never been the repeal's friend, and adding more of it to the process just makes it much harder.
Whoa Corker's retiring
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ker-not-seek-re-election-next-year/678088001/
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ker-not-seek-re-election-next-year/678088001/
Mark Andrew
Member
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Mark Andrew
Member
61-35 Trump.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Could be, midterms are weird.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Looks like several people were lining up to run against the "RINO."
Though this at least takes away an incumbency advantage for the Republicans in a race. It's just a shame that race is in Tennessee.
Though this at least takes away an incumbency advantage for the Republicans in a race. It's just a shame that race is in Tennessee.
Still think I prefer newish GOP blood here, worst case. Less experience and discipline is a net win.
Officerrob
Banned
Even is deep red states where re-election is all but guaranteed, some Republicans simply won't want to deal with Trumps bullshit and will choose to walk away
Randolph Freelander
Member
Incumbency advantage is gone for Rs, which is at least a positive development.
I think I would prefer Corker to whatever Tea Party/Trumpian lunatic is going to get the nomination.
whyamihere
Banned
Yup.
Electric Eye
Banned
No way. If the trend continues you'll one day end up with all new fresh blood and no old guard to follow the parliamentary rules and no one to care to dig them out.
Had to google that result to make sure it was making the point I was pretty sure it was making!
It's not unwinnable, you just can't run Al Gore. (you're looking for a Manchin.)
Fair point. How far off would be a likely tipping point?
whyamihere
Banned
The GOP won Illinois in a midterm after it went for Obama 62-37 Obama.
And MA
Mark Andrew
Member
Kill me.
They literally just voted it up.
whyamihere
Banned
Won't matter after Moore wins tonight.
Poodlestrike
Banned
AL GORE FOR SENATE 2018
(Climate) Change you can Believe In
(Climate) Change you can Believe In
Apparently she just put forth something to make standing for the national anthem mandatory. Should be popular with trumpkins.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Phil Bredesen, that's your cue.
Was just wondering today what Corker would do.
Wonder what's more winnable, open seat Tennessee or Cruz-held Texas.
Was just wondering today what Corker would do.
Wonder what's more winnable, open seat Tennessee or Cruz-held Texas.
VendettaRed07
Member
West Virginia 68-26
Box of Kittens
Banned
Tennessee was the only big Senate target Dems missed in 2006. But yes, you contest it for sure (i.e., recruit a real candidate and give DSCC support). We should be investing everywhere, especially in open seat races.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yes, that is a very weird thing to say
That is certainly a loaded statement. He chairs the Foreign Relations committee.
No that sounds like he wants to impeach.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Thats certainly a loaded quote.
He's running
Not to mention that a straight up repeal like this without careful replacement provisions will look even more terrible.
Infinite Stars
Member
Welp, that quote is loaded. I can't imagine that being said without him knowing stuff that we don't. The real question is as head of the Foreign Relations Committee what exactly he means. Impeachment? Even more Sanctions?
That being said, the fact that a "moderate"could be replaced by yet another madman from the Teaparty is scary
I think his general point is that if you're a McCain or a Bernie, you've spent so long working in federal government that it changes how you think. There's no (relative) shame in wanting to tap out.
That being said, the fact that a "moderate"could be replaced by yet another madman from the Teaparty is scary
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked