Political Roundtable Part XI

[tontoz]

Half of college educated women voted for Trump, in spite of his outrageous behavior with women, so clearly there is something about the Ds or Hillary specifically that turned people off.

I might be wrong but I think this was more a reflection of Hillary herself than on the Democratic Party as a whole.

A Joe Biden for example, wipes the floor with Trump imo.

He holds on to the Obama coalition as well as appealing to the working class white voters.

So was it the DNC that discouraged Joe from running? The obvious corruption in the DNC might have been a reason why the Ds struggled in the House and Senate as well.

[Wizardspride]

Half of college educated women voted for Trump, in spite of his outrageous behavior with women, so clearly there is something about the Ds or Hillary specifically that turned people off.

I might be wrong but I think this was more a reflection of Hillary herself than on the Democratic Party as a whole.

A Joe Biden for example, wipes the floor with Trump imo.

He holds on to the Obama coalition as well as appealing to the working class white voters.

So was it the DNC that discouraged Joe from running? The obvious corruption in the DNC might have been a reason why the Ds struggled in the House and Senate as well.

It's clear the DNC was in the tank for Hillary but I think Joe was just dealing with the death of his son and waited too late to enter the race.

And as for why the Dems struggled in the House and Senate, don't think the DNC had anything to do with that.


Particularly the House...where the Dems actually gained seats. You also have to factor in the Republican gerrymandering when you look at the House.

The Senate from a Democratic perspective was the bigger disappointment.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Family friend in Ohio who's a successful real estate guy who voted Trump is PISSED with this pick and the other cabinet picks.

I'm thinking what did you expect?

His cabinet is literally a bunch of yes men, financiers, and family members. It's really a sight to behold.

That's just nonsense. I don't expect you to like Trump's cabinet, but to call it a bunch of yes men is just wrong. His top advisors are Priebus and Bannon, one is a conventional conservative insider and the other is a populist/nationalist outsider. That looks to me like Trump is trying to get advisors from the entire range of the conservative spectrum, which is what wise leaders do.

Among cabinet officials named, he's got Sessions, who is in lockstep with Trump on immigration and corruption, the focus of his campaign. Of course that guy is going to agree with Trump. But he also has named Chao, who is a competent veteran administrator from the Bush administration (certainly not a friend of Trump). His HHS secretary is Tom Price, an orthopedic surgeon who is a long time ally of Paul Ryan, (again, no friend of Trump). His U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, is another Trump critic.

His Commerce Secretary pick is Wilbur Ross, a 79-year-old who has made a long career out of resuscitating dying companies in the steel and coal business. Seems like a reasonable pick to me. (The age is important because he's old enough to give zero f**ks about who he pisses off.)

He is talking with many different people for Sec. of State, including one of his biggest rivals, Romney. Democrat Tulsi Gabbard may be in the running as well.

I'm not thrilled about his Treasury pick, but I'll withhold judgement for a while. It's tough to find experts in the field who don't also have ties to the banking industry. If we make that a disqualifier, then there isn't much to choose from.

Drain the SWAMP

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Price is an obsessive privatizer. Price has called ACA's provision requiring insurers accept beneficiaries w/ pre-ex conditions "a terrible idea". But atleast Trump and other GOP have said they won't get rid of that

[nate33]

Price is an obsessive privatizer. Price has called ACA's provision requiring insurers accept beneficiaries w/ pre-ex conditions "a terrible idea". But atleast Trump and other GOP have said they won't get rid of that

The moment you accept that pre-existing conditions cannot be considered, then you are no longer talking about insurance. It's pure government-funded socialized health care.

[dckingsfan]

It's ridiculous to blame Trump's rise on the D's.

I am blaming Ds loss of the Senate, House and majority of the Governorships on the Ds. Do you not see that? Zonk are you in complete denial that their message is lost on so many? That isn't hyperbola - that is fact.

If you are saying that America is "stupid" because they don't like the D's message - then I don't know what to say.

If America deserves a Democratic president then we'll get one. If we're all going to act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls we'll get a candidate that acts like one.

If the Ds govern well and put forward solid candidates then they will earn the country back. They didn't. They lost. It is really that simple.

It is comments like this that make me wonder if the Ds can change tack.

Ok. You've mentioned this several times over the past few weeks and I'd like to know exactly how you'd like the Dems to change tack?

Specifics.

That is the question really. What is it about the message that is losing voters. I am an independent that votes D more than R. I am still wrestling with which way they should tack.

If it was just the Presidential election - I would just write it off to Hillary. But look at the House and Governorships.

Are they perceived as putting too much of a premium on the environment vs. economy (its the economy stupid was a winning message)? Are they perceived as putting too much into public unions vs. public good? Are they perceived as blocking fiscal sustainably?

Those are some of the questions they need to answer. It isn't going to be easy. But if they don't want the yoyo (Ds govern poorly then the Rs govern poorly, then...) then they are going to need to answer some of those questions.

[dckingsfan]

Price is an obsessive privatizer. Price has called ACA's provision requiring insurers accept beneficiaries w/ pre-ex conditions "a terrible idea". But at least Trump and other GOP have said they won't get rid of that

The moment you accept that pre-existing conditions cannot be considered, then you are no longer talking about insurance. It's pure government-funded socialized health care.

Disagree. You are talking about pooling and spreading the costs. There are some parts of the ACA that are pretty good (and Rs want to keep) and this is one of them. Another was capping the profits that could be taken by the insurers.

[nate33]

Price is an obsessive privatizer. Price has called ACA's provision requiring insurers accept beneficiaries w/ pre-ex conditions "a terrible idea". But at least Trump and other GOP have said they won't get rid of that

The moment you accept that pre-existing conditions cannot be considered, then you are no longer talking about insurance. It's pure government-funded socialized health care.

Disagree. You are talking about pooling and spreading the costs. There are some parts of the ACA that are pretty good (and Rs want to keep) and this is one of them. Another was capping the profits that could be taken by the insurers.

But knowingly and intentionally transferring the costs from expensive, high-risk consumers to cheap low-risk consumers is indistinguishable from a subsidy. The whole premise of insurance is to manage risk. If an insurance company knows someone is high risk, they should be able to charge for it. Otherwise, we descend into this cesspool of cost shifting, fraud, and an ever-increasing bureaucratic leviathan to try and stay ahead of the problem.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take steps to help defer the costs for those with expesnive pre-existing conditions. I'm just saying that those cost deferrals should come directly from the taxpayer as a government subsidy, and we should know exactly how much we are paying so we can make public policy decisions on how much we are willing to subsidize.

Let insurance do the job of insurance, and let government do the job of subsidizing those who can't pay for themselves. This will incentivize people to stay healthy so their insurance premiums stay low, and it should reduce some of the bureaucratic red tape involved with regulating the industry.

[Zonkerbl]

It's ridiculous to blame Trump's rise on the D's.

I am blaming Ds loss of the Senate, House and majority of the Governorships on the Ds. Do you not see that? Zonk are you in complete denial that their message is lost on so many? That isn't hyperbola - that is fact.

If you are saying that America is "stupid" because they don't like the D's message - then I don't know what to say.

If America deserves a Democratic president then we'll get one. If we're all going to act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls we'll get a candidate that acts like one.

If the Ds govern well and put forward solid candidates then they will earn the country back. They didn't. They lost. It is really that simple.

It is comments like this that make me wonder if the Ds can change tack.

If you claim, by putting the word stupid in quotes, that I used that word in my post, then that is a baldfaced, despicable, slanderous lie and I demand a retraction and an apology.

[dckingsfan]

It's ridiculous to blame Trump's rise on the D's.

I am blaming Ds loss of the Senate, House and majority of the Governorships on the Ds. Do you not see that? Zonk are you in complete denial that their message is lost on so many? That isn't hyperbola - that is fact.

If you are saying that America is "stupid" because they don't like the D's message - then I don't know what to say.

If America deserves a Democratic president then we'll get one. If we're all going to act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls we'll get a candidate that acts like one.

If the Ds govern well and put forward solid candidates then they will earn the country back. They didn't. They lost. It is really that simple.

It is comments like this that make me wonder if the Ds can change tack.

If you claim, by putting the word stupid in quotes, that I used that word in my post, then that is a baldfaced, despicable, slanderous lie and I demand a retraction and an apology.

a happy retraction if that isn't what was implied.

[dckingsfan]

The moment you accept that pre-existing conditions cannot be considered, then you are no longer talking about insurance. It's pure government-funded socialized health care.

Disagree. You are talking about pooling and spreading the costs. There are some parts of the ACA that are pretty good (and Rs want to keep) and this is one of them. Another was capping the profits that could be taken by the insurers.

But knowingly and intentionally transferring the costs from expensive, high-risk consumers to cheap low-risk consumers is indistinguishable from a subsidy. The whole premise of insurance is to manage risk. If an insurance company knows someone is high risk, they should be able to charge for it. Otherwise, we descend into this cesspool of cost shifting, fraud, and an ever-increasing bureaucratic leviathan to try and stay ahead of the problem.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take steps to help defer the costs for those with expesnive pre-existing conditions. I'm just saying that those cost deferrals should come directly from the taxpayer as a government subsidy, and we should know exactly how much we are paying so we can make public policy decisions on how much we are willing to subsidize.

Let insurance do the job of insurance, and let government do the job of subsidizing those who can't pay for themselves. This will incentivize people to stay healthy so their insurance premiums stay low, and it should reduce some of the bureaucratic red tape involved with regulating the industry.

The difference is that it is a marketplace (consumer) subsidy vs. a government subsidy.

I don't disagree with your premise that there should be a direct Government subsidy. But there is a slippery slope there as well.

[Zonkerbl]

The Dems lost because turnout was lower than it needed to be. Democratic core voters were not inspired by Hillary like they were for Obama.

Hillary's team was more than 90% white. She did not do a good job countering Trump's assertion that the Dems have not, in fact, done anything for the African American voters who have voted for the dems faithfully, by more than a 90% margin, in the last several elections. It's true. Trump isn't going to do anything for them but the Dems haven't done anything either.

The Dems have to put forth credible reforms to the criminal justice system and hire some damn african americans, they've been running the whole dayum government for 8 years, you don't find any of them competent enough to help you in your campaign?

Dem leadership has to stop allowing themselves to be bullied by internet trolls, stand up and propose real proposals that will help their core constituents. Criminal justice reform. Marijuana legalization. Continued funding of Planned Parenthood. Aggressively push acceptance of LGBT marriages and other fundamental rights. Immigration reform. Don't be afraid of making the GOP mad. Mad is good, it means you're doing something right. Propose some changes that will get the core excited.

They lost the union vote because the economic power of unions has been eroded away by globalization, and Dems only listen to white people if they're union members. That has to change somehow. The nice thing about unions is when you adopt a policy that helps union members, the union loudly advertises it to its members as justification for continued paying of union dues. No more union, no more free advertising for policies that help blue collar workers. That's a real problem. No matter how hard you try to help those folks, if they don't associate that help with Dems then it doesn't matter how uneducated-white-friendly you try to be, you won't get their votes.

I think the Dems have to propose a basic income. It'll be a big deal, it'll be splashed all over the internet, the GOP will HATE HATE HATE it, so it'll be clearly associated with the Dems, and EVERYONE will get it (who asks for it). It needs to be done anyway so why not take advantage of the political benefits while you're at it.

[tontoz]

I am blaming Ds loss of the Senate, House and majority of the Governorships on the Ds. Do you not see that? Zonk are you in complete denial that their message is lost on so many? That isn't hyperbola - that is fact.

If you are saying that America is "stupid" because they don't like the D's message - then I don't know what to say.

If the Ds govern well and put forward solid candidates then they will earn the country back. They didn't. They lost. It is really that simple.

It is comments like this that make me wonder if the Ds can change tack.

If you claim, by putting the word stupid in quotes, that I used that word in my post, then that is a baldfaced, despicable, slanderous lie and I demand a retraction and an apology.

a happy retraction if that isn't what was implied.

Seriously how dare you imply that saying "act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls" means people were being stupid.

[Zonkerbl]

Hm, there are 125 million households in the US, give each of them $30,000, that comes out to $3.75 trillion a year. Total federal revenue was $3.6 trillion.

Tricky.

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

Family friend in Ohio who's a successful real estate guy who voted Trump is PISSED with this pick and the other cabinet picks.

I'm thinking what did you expect?

His cabinet is literally a bunch of yes men, financiers, and family members. It's really a sight to behold.

I like his appointments for the Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, I think she could actually help. I like Elaine Chao. I like Tom Price. I like Nikki Haley.

Steven Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Ben Carson, Mike Pompeo, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Reince Priebus puzzle me as a whole.

DeVos believes in charter schools and vouchers. Terrible. Not even her own state of MI supported her initiatives.

Chao sounds like a typical bureaucratic move--she's married to Mitch McConnell. She has no wins on her resume other than that, and being rich.

Tom Price SCARES THE S**T OUTTA ME. He wants to go back to the old regressive way of healthcare under Bush, which was terrible. He's also staunchly pro-life, which I am against.

This cabinet sounds like Dubya 2.0

[Zonkerbl]

If you claim, by putting the word stupid in quotes, that I used that word in my post, then that is a baldfaced, despicable, slanderous lie and I demand a retraction and an apology.

a happy retraction if that isn't what was implied.

Seriously how dare you imply that saying "act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls" means people were being stupid.

I won't apologize for saying something that's true.

There's a big difference between calling people bullies and bullying them (by calling them stupid). You're basically trying to make it look like I'm saying the opposite of what I said. It's lying.

[tontoz]

a happy retraction if that isn't what was implied.

Seriously how dare you imply that saying "act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls" means people were being stupid.

I won't apologize for saying something that's true.

There's a big difference between calling people bullies and bullying them (by calling them stupid). You're basically trying to make it look like I'm saying the opposite of what I said. It's lying.

Frankly I think many people aren't going to see a big distinction between saying that people are acting like 13 yr old internet trolls or saying people were being stupid. Both are insulting peoples' intelligence.

[Zonkerbl]

If people can't tell the difference between the word "troll" and the word "stupid" I think that's on them. I can't be held responsible for other people's lack of reading comprehension.

[tontoz]

If people can't tell the difference between the word "troll" and the word "stupid" I think that's on them. I can't be held responsible for other people's lack of reading comprehension.

Oh so now you leave out the "13 year old' comment. LOL

So you really dont understand that people might interpret you saying they are acting like 13 year olds as being akin to saying they are acting stupid?

Wow

[Induveca]

If you claim, by putting the word stupid in quotes, that I used that word in my post, then that is a baldfaced, despicable, slanderous lie and I demand a retraction and an apology.

a happy retraction if that isn't what was implied.

Seriously how dare you imply that saying "act like a bunch of 13 year old internet trolls" means people were being stupid.

[Induveca]

If people can't tell the difference between the word "troll" and the word "stupid" I think that's on them. I can't be held responsible for other people's lack of reading comprehension.

Oh so now you leave out the "13 year old' comment. LOL

So you really dont understand that people might interpret you saying they are acting like 13 year olds as being akin to saying they are acting stupid?

Wow

How dare you Tontoz!

One might say the inability to deduce your assertion points to something akin to stupidity.