The democrats are dropping the ball on a number of key fronts. PPE & Ventilators for hospitals- the lack of action here is unconscionable. Country wide lockdown is needed. No mail in voting...
The democrats are dropping the ball on a number of key fronts.
PPE & Ventilators for hospitals- the lack of action here is unconscionable.
Country wide lockdown is needed.
No mail in voting country wide? Really?
No clear voice from Democrats. Trump is lying. To the American people. People are dying as a result.
There is a supply constraint. I see this as largely being inflationary. Do you not think direct government action centrally directing who should divert manufacturing capacity to PPE, ventilators...
The stimulus bill includes $100 billion for hospitals and healthcare systems, including money for more personal and protective equipment, testing supplies, and new construction to house patients.
There is a supply constraint. I see this as largely being inflationary. Do you not think direct government action centrally directing who should divert manufacturing capacity to PPE, ventilators and testing supplies would be beneficial?
For your other points, I don't see a clear voice on how democrats would be more proactive and transparent. It is the oppositions job to forcefully advocate for a better way of doing things.
Seems to me like it would certainly be easier if Bernie would drop out and let Biden take the lead of the party. Instead Bernie is dragging out a primary election he has already lost, wasting money and resources on both sides, and leaving the Biden campaign in limbo as the want to transition to the general election.
What? How is staying in the race equivalent to conspiracy theories and rigged elections?
To me, this feels like a repeat of 2016. The Bernie campaign and his supporters are double and tripling down on conspiracy theories about health or rigged elections.
What? How is staying in the race equivalent to conspiracy theories and rigged elections?
This is a bit out of date, since the Democrats did make sure there's more oversight of the corporate bailout funds. It's also making a victory look like a defeat, unnecessarily. These were...
This is a bit out of date, since the Democrats did make sure there's more oversight of the corporate bailout funds.
It's also making a victory look like a defeat, unnecessarily. These were hard-fought negotations.
There is a wonderful tradition in American political journalism in which only the Democratic party has any agency at all. Even if the Democrats control no branches of the government, everything is...
There is a wonderful tradition in American political journalism in which only the Democratic party has any agency at all.
Even if the Democrats control no branches of the government, everything is all their fault. Even if 98% of the Democrats go one way and, like, 2 guys flake off it's a sign that "The Democrats" are just the same as the Republicans.
They aren't the same about everything, but they also refuse to leverage their positions in the way Republicans do, which makes them seem like they agree with Republicans. Why are Democrats...
They aren't the same about everything, but they also refuse to leverage their positions in the way Republicans do, which makes them seem like they agree with Republicans. Why are Democrats continuing to vote for the budgets that are funding the Iraq war? If the Republicans had a serious moral problem with the budget, they would shut the government down for months.
Republicans like shutting the government down for months because their explicit aim is to hamstring the effectiveness and utility of the government, which protracted and frequent shut-downs end up...
If the Republicans had a serious moral problem with the budget, they would shut the government down for months.
Republicans like shutting the government down for months because their explicit aim is to hamstring the effectiveness and utility of the government, which protracted and frequent shut-downs end up doing. If you actually care about the welfare of the people in line at the bank, it wouldn't make much sense for you to take them hostage and start making demands that you know won't be met.
And what's more, whenever Republicans DO shut the government down, they end up losing that fight anyway. So it's not even an effective strategy globally, just locally for the handful of fringe nutcase districts that do it. Shutdowns have seriously damaged the Republican brand overall, they've just empowered the nutcases in the party at everyone else's expense.
Why are Democrats continuing to vote for the budgets that are funding the Iraq war?
These budgets go through omnibus spending bills. It's called an omnibus bill because it's a spending bill that covers all the things. They vote for the budget because it's still the policy of the United States government to continue prosecuting that war and the budget is just the funding to execute on that policy. They could go for broke on it and end up defunding things like the Defense Health Agency and basically every heavy manufacturing and semiconductor producer in the country, but that's not exactly a winning gambit. Ending a war usually means a drawdown of forces and an organized process of pulling people out and cleaning up after ourselves. You can't just decide "No money, figure it out" and expect the war to just end. If the President is still committed to seeing it through, they'll just move the money in from somewhere else.
I would like to see the data that supports this. Where is that policy explicitly defined? How would that policy be changed?
And what's more, whenever Republicans DO shut the government down, they end up losing that fight anyway. So it's not even an effective strategy globally, just locally for the handful of fringe nutcase districts that do it.
I would like to see the data that supports this.
They vote for the budget because it's still the policy of the United States government to continue prosecuting that war and the budget is just the funding to execute on that policy.
Where is that policy explicitly defined? How would that policy be changed?
This is well known enough to be conventional wisdom: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-government-shutdown-effect-big-in-the-short-term-small-after-that/ Out in the real world, there are...
Where is that policy explicitly defined? How would that policy be changed?
Out in the real world, there are troops stationed in Iraq. Regardless of what changes you make on paper, it still has to be executed by a whole chain of command in reality. This isn't an "explicitly defined policy" so much as a brute fact about how governments work. When you have an executive and a 535 person legislature who have to form a consensus about changing course, it ends up being kind of hard to make everyone agree on what to change or how to change things.
I think we disagree about what "conventional wisdom" means. It seems like you're trying to suggest that I'm ignoring something obvious but the article you linked explicitly says that there is not...
This is well known enough to be conventional wisdom
I think we disagree about what "conventional wisdom" means. It seems like you're trying to suggest that I'm ignoring something obvious but the article you linked explicitly says that there is not a lot of data to go on. Regardless it seems to be generally true so I concede the point about outright shutting the government down.
I was referring to the polling data being examined in the article you linked. The article mentions that part of the challenge in examining the efficacy shutdowns is the lack of "polling with which...
I was referring to the polling data being examined in the article you linked. The article mentions that part of the challenge in examining the efficacy shutdowns is the lack of "polling with which to examine the political effects of prior shutdowns."
I don't think I made a general statement about shutdowns. I asked why the Democrats don't employ shutdowns and you said that it is conventional wisdom that shutdowns are ineffective.
I don't think I made a general statement about shutdowns. I asked why the Democrats don't employ shutdowns and you said that it is conventional wisdom that shutdowns are ineffective.
Still don't understand where you're getting that from. From the article you posted:
Still don't understand where you're getting that from. From the article you posted:
Indeed, prior shutdowns haven’t had long-term electoral implications. Republicans recovered on the generic ballot by February 1996, just a month after the final shutdown of that period ended. And in the elections later that year, they held onto their majorities in both the House and Senate. Clinton, meanwhile, recovered his lost support by March 1996. He would go on to easily win reelection later in 1996.
Basically, America put the same people who shut the government down back in office.
The 2013 shutdown tells the same story. Despite losing the blame game, Republicans jumped to a lead on the generic ballot by late November 2013 — their first of the year. In the 2014 midterms, they expanded their majority in the House and won back the Senate. Meanwhile, Obama continued a long-term decline in his approval ratings in the months following the 2013 shutdown, but recovered to his pre-shutdown approval level by April 2014.
Republicans like shutting the government down for months because their explicit aim is to hamstring the effectiveness and utility of the government, which protracted and frequent shut-downs end up doing. If you actually care about the welfare of the people in line at the bank, it wouldn't make much sense for you to take them hostage and start making demands that you know won't be met.
Okay. It just seems like you're using the term "conventional wisdom" to suggest that I'm an idiot (which is fine, I'd just prefer directness over passive aggressiveness). I asked a question, it...
Okay. It just seems like you're using the term "conventional wisdom" to suggest that I'm an idiot (which is fine, I'd just prefer directness over passive aggressiveness). I asked a question, it was answered, and I conceded the point. It was not "conventional wisdom" to me.
You're claiming there is some better strategy that they refuse to use. Why are you so confident that you understand U.S. legislative negotiations better than the people who were actually there? We...
You're claiming there is some better strategy that they refuse to use. Why are you so confident that you understand U.S. legislative negotiations better than the people who were actually there? We are only getting sketchy media reports, and even the people who are deep into it don't know everything that's going on.
I think even historians with the benefit of hindsight will have trouble figuring out whether there was a missed opportunity to negotiate a better deal. Alternate history is kind of hard to prove either way.
I never said that I understand the process better than them. I don't think they want to end the war. That's the problem, they aren't acting as representatives for us. I'm not sure what the...
I never said that I understand the process better than them. I don't think they want to end the war. That's the problem, they aren't acting as representatives for us. I'm not sure what the solution is in your book, but I'm not going to praise everything my party does just because it's convenient for them politically.
Okay, yes, I think I am misunderstanding you. I thought we were talking about the coronavirus legislation but it seems you're talking about something else?
Okay, yes, I think I am misunderstanding you. I thought we were talking about the coronavirus legislation but it seems you're talking about something else?
Yeah I suppose I'm on a bit of a tangent and I lost track of the OP. I was responding to NaraVara talking about the pattern of Democrats being blamed for things and I brought up the Iraq war. I...
Yeah I suppose I'm on a bit of a tangent and I lost track of the OP. I was responding to NaraVara talking about the pattern of Democrats being blamed for things and I brought up the Iraq war.
I think the stimulus bill is terrible but I agree with your point; It appears that the Democrats did what they could here.
The democrats are dropping the ball on a number of key fronts.
PPE & Ventilators for hospitals- the lack of action here is unconscionable.
Country wide lockdown is needed.
No mail in voting country wide? Really?
No clear voice from Democrats. Trump is lying. To the American people. People are dying as a result.
TIL the Democrats are accelerationists. Unfortunately it's not gonna work like in 2008.
There is a supply constraint. I see this as largely being inflationary. Do you not think direct government action centrally directing who should divert manufacturing capacity to PPE, ventilators and testing supplies would be beneficial?
For your other points, I don't see a clear voice on how democrats would be more proactive and transparent. It is the oppositions job to forcefully advocate for a better way of doing things.
I personally agree, but he has said something.
What? How is staying in the race equivalent to conspiracy theories and rigged elections?
Okay but how is that related to him staying in the race? This seems like a nonsequitir to me.
This is a bit out of date, since the Democrats did make sure there's more oversight of the corporate bailout funds.
It's also making a victory look like a defeat, unnecessarily. These were hard-fought negotations.
There is a wonderful tradition in American political journalism in which only the Democratic party has any agency at all.
Even if the Democrats control no branches of the government, everything is all their fault. Even if 98% of the Democrats go one way and, like, 2 guys flake off it's a sign that "The Democrats" are just the same as the Republicans.
They aren't the same about everything, but they also refuse to leverage their positions in the way Republicans do, which makes them seem like they agree with Republicans. Why are Democrats continuing to vote for the budgets that are funding the Iraq war? If the Republicans had a serious moral problem with the budget, they would shut the government down for months.
Republicans like shutting the government down for months because their explicit aim is to hamstring the effectiveness and utility of the government, which protracted and frequent shut-downs end up doing. If you actually care about the welfare of the people in line at the bank, it wouldn't make much sense for you to take them hostage and start making demands that you know won't be met.
And what's more, whenever Republicans DO shut the government down, they end up losing that fight anyway. So it's not even an effective strategy globally, just locally for the handful of fringe nutcase districts that do it. Shutdowns have seriously damaged the Republican brand overall, they've just empowered the nutcases in the party at everyone else's expense.
These budgets go through omnibus spending bills. It's called an omnibus bill because it's a spending bill that covers all the things. They vote for the budget because it's still the policy of the United States government to continue prosecuting that war and the budget is just the funding to execute on that policy. They could go for broke on it and end up defunding things like the Defense Health Agency and basically every heavy manufacturing and semiconductor producer in the country, but that's not exactly a winning gambit. Ending a war usually means a drawdown of forces and an organized process of pulling people out and cleaning up after ourselves. You can't just decide "No money, figure it out" and expect the war to just end. If the President is still committed to seeing it through, they'll just move the money in from somewhere else.
I would like to see the data that supports this.
Where is that policy explicitly defined? How would that policy be changed?
This is well known enough to be conventional wisdom: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-government-shutdown-effect-big-in-the-short-term-small-after-that/
Out in the real world, there are troops stationed in Iraq. Regardless of what changes you make on paper, it still has to be executed by a whole chain of command in reality. This isn't an "explicitly defined policy" so much as a brute fact about how governments work. When you have an executive and a 535 person legislature who have to form a consensus about changing course, it ends up being kind of hard to make everyone agree on what to change or how to change things.
I think we disagree about what "conventional wisdom" means. It seems like you're trying to suggest that I'm ignoring something obvious but the article you linked explicitly says that there is not a lot of data to go on. Regardless it seems to be generally true so I concede the point about outright shutting the government down.
Because it's only happened a handful of times in history, so it's not really a phenomenon that's subject to being studied with "data."
I was referring to the polling data being examined in the article you linked. The article mentions that part of the challenge in examining the efficacy shutdowns is the lack of "polling with which to examine the political effects of prior shutdowns."
If you want to make a general statement about shutdowns, you'd need a bigger N than 4 previous shutdowns with tons of confounding variables for each.
I don't think I made a general statement about shutdowns. I asked why the Democrats don't employ shutdowns and you said that it is conventional wisdom that shutdowns are ineffective.
Not just ineffective. Likely to backfire.
Still don't understand where you're getting that from. From the article you posted:
Okay. It just seems like you're using the term "conventional wisdom" to suggest that I'm an idiot (which is fine, I'd just prefer directness over passive aggressiveness). I asked a question, it was answered, and I conceded the point. It was not "conventional wisdom" to me.
You're claiming there is some better strategy that they refuse to use. Why are you so confident that you understand U.S. legislative negotiations better than the people who were actually there? We are only getting sketchy media reports, and even the people who are deep into it don't know everything that's going on.
I think even historians with the benefit of hindsight will have trouble figuring out whether there was a missed opportunity to negotiate a better deal. Alternate history is kind of hard to prove either way.
I never said that I understand the process better than them. I don't think they want to end the war. That's the problem, they aren't acting as representatives for us. I'm not sure what the solution is in your book, but I'm not going to praise everything my party does just because it's convenient for them politically.
Okay, yes, I think I am misunderstanding you. I thought we were talking about the coronavirus legislation but it seems you're talking about something else?
Yeah I suppose I'm on a bit of a tangent and I lost track of the OP. I was responding to NaraVara talking about the pattern of Democrats being blamed for things and I brought up the Iraq war.
I think the stimulus bill is terrible but I agree with your point; It appears that the Democrats did what they could here.