news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, Kassi said:

Yeah. So you want Dems to effectively pass an abortion ban at 15 weeks for all women living in red states.  By no measure is that “codifying Roe”.

 

Idk if you’re serious or yanking our legs. But, if you are serious, you may want to re-explore the Roe and Casey opinions. For summary purposes, Roe used a trimester framework and allowed abortions until the end of the second trimester or ~28 weeks. Then, Casey reaffirmed that by using viability as a framework and, referring to the latest medical consensus, clarified that viability meant ~24 weeks. 
 

Pelosi’s Women’s Health Protection Act also uses viability as a framework, with the exact same language for post-viability exceptions for life of the mother.

 

Just admit that you accidentally took a bad position so you could shame Democrats for Doing Something by foolishly suggesting that they Do Something even worse (basically carry out the Republicans agenda for them ff). 

Again. 15 weeks is what the MAJORITY of the country supports.

 

I’m not “admitting” to anything. Your position that you’re applauding Pelosi for is, I’ll repeat, just as out-of-step with the country as a full ban. That the democrats are trying and failing to do so with control of both houses and the presidency reflects poorly on them with regards to moderates when the opposition to their bill is the bipartisan vote.

 

Also, a 15 week ban is a hell of a lot better than the Heartbeat Bills that have been passed in my state and elsewhere. So miss me with that sanctimonious bullshit over “you’re EFFECTIVELY banning abortion in red states” nonsense when WORSE is already on the books.

[Kassi]

Ok, well, needless to say, codifying Roe and passing a 15 week abortion ban (as you’re suggesting) present two very different political prospects for Democrats.

 

I prefer that Democrats continue attempting to codify Roe than concede the abortion issue to Republicans (i.e. the Mississippi law which resulted in Dobbs was a 15 week ban, Florida has a 15 week ban, Virginia is eyeing a 15 week ban, etc). Conceding not only affirms Republicans framing on the issue, but also results in Democratic in-fighting that the media will lap up with glee all right before the midterms. 
 

The CPC obviously won’t go for it. Communion and Bloo will drag Pelosi for even presenting it. And you’ll use the rhetorical shitstorm as a reason why Dems deserve to lose. Ironically, the only upside would be maybe Cuellar finally votes yes on an abortion bill (at the expense of like 70% of the caucus, but still funny to think about ).

[GhostBox]

I never thought Id see clashandburn advocating for a 15 week abortion ban ?

 

literally  if Joe or Pelosi presented that idea you would trash them

to the pits and back. ?

Edited July 16, 2022 by GhostBox

[ClashAndBurn]

You frame it as conceding to Republicans when, I REPEAT, it is the majoritarian position. Really interesting to see Republicans be more in step with the public on abortion than moderate Dems like @Kassi and @GhostBox tbh!

 

You are also being extremely bad faith too. A ban on <15-week bans wouldn’t be ceding ground to Republicans at all. And is NOT itself a 15-week ban. Not only that, but Republicans in the Senate are likely too extreme to let a MODERATE POSITION like a ban on <15-week bans pass. Your unwillingness to put them on record for moderate voters in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia to consider when deciding to cast their votes could be what costs Dems the Senate!

[Kassi]

2 hours ago, Communion said:

You're so removed from the reality of anyone living paycheck to paycheck. It's honestly unbearable and like having a MSNBC panelist spamming the thread with objectively false conspiracies they heard over brunch. 

Girl, what? The dramatics. All I said was that M4A, like all public policy, will be susceptible to political propaganda. That’s an objective fact.  
 

If modest (yet transformational ), market-based reforms of the healthcare system couldn’t go unscathed in the political process….

 

 

….what exactly are we expecting to happen with an entire uproot of the system once the right-wing propaganda machine rears its ugly head?

 

Again, not saying the left shouldn’t go for it (though it’s certainly not MY favorite policy approach on this), but, like all hard things, it’s not going to be a walk in the park.
 

And yes, just like the ACA, it may result in Dems losing 1000+ seats as the public takes nearly a decade to adjust to the changes. So dragging them for taking on the political risk and consequences of doing Big Policy is just childish.

[Kassi]

38 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

You frame it as conceding to Republicans when, I REPEAT, it is the majoritarian position. Really interesting to see Republicans be more in step with the public on abortion than moderate Dems like @Kassi and @GhostBox tbh!

 

You are also being extremely bad faith too. A ban on <15-week bans wouldn’t be ceding ground to Republicans at all. And is NOT itself a 15-week ban. Not only that, but Republicans in the Senate are likely too extreme to let a MODERATE POSITION like a ban on <15-week bans pass. Your unwillingness to put them on record for moderate voters in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia to consider when deciding to cast their votes could be what costs Dems the Senate!

Ok. So let’s imagine moderate Democrats draft the bill and Pelosi begrudgingly brings it to the floor (she would never, but let’s assume). 
 

Who’s to blame when at least half of the 99 members of the CPC including the Squad (so say 45) votes “No” at the behest of abortion activists and the bill tanks? Would you be willing to call out the progressives for being out-of-step with the American people? Probably not. Because, as your side would say, and have said for kooky things like the Green New Deal, at least they’re “fighting for something”. 
 

That’s the issue. However you want to twist Democrats instituting a 15 week abortion ban, at the end of the day, it’s just bad politics with no upside. 

[Kassi]

1 hour ago, GhostBox said:

I never thought Id see clashandburn advocating for a 15 week abortion ban ?

 

literally  if Joe or Pelosi presented that idea you would trash them

to the pits and back. ?

The way he thought he ate…
 

“Oh! They don’t know Roe! Unlimited abortions! Abortion on demand! Extremists!”

 

…just ready to lap up the right-wing talking points when it’s convenient against Dems. Sad.
 

In a parallel universe, Nancy’s House passing 3 abortion bills back to back to back would be seen as Dems Doing Something even when it’s improbable like they’ve been SCREAMING for Biden to do in the executive branch, which has even less authority over laws.

 

Literally scraping the bottom of the barrel for any reason to be mad at Dems. 

[TheLastChord]

I agree though, that Democrats have 3 months to bring some of the points outlined by Thomas in Dobbs to the floor and make everyone take a stance. But they won't, 'cause all the Dem leadership cares about is a false sense of "electability" by remaining vague on everything and not actually doing something with the power they have now. They crave the republicans having both majorities so that Biden can sign some cute vetoes in the next 2 years and they become "brave" by doing that and they no longer have the responsability of leading a legislative agenda. 

 

It's absolutely stupid not to put same sex marriage, contraception accessability and anti-sodomy on the floor while you still can. But they're of course afraid of two things, one, of "cornering their own candidates" and two, that something might actually pass. 

[Mean Trees]

28 minutes ago, Kassi said:

The way he thought he ate…
 

“Oh! They don’t know Roe! Unlimited abortions! Abortion on demand! Extremists!”

 

…just ready to lap up the right-wing talking points when it’s convenient against Dems. Sad.
 

In a parallel universe, Nancy’s House passing 3 abortion bills back to back to back would be seen as Dems Doing Something even when it’s improbable like they’ve been SCREAMING for Biden to do in the executive branch, which has even less authority over laws.

 

Literally scraping the bottom of the barrel for any reason to be mad at Dems. 

Weren't you praising them like a week ago??

[rihannabiggestfan]

 

Drag, but "If I was morally bankrupt enough to [even have a Washington Post subscription], I'd walk around every day of my life deeply ashamed."

 

and OMG, I forgot Oz said that, he is truly so terrible

 

 

---

 

and it's not """gaffes""" if on a daily basis, it's a mental condition

 

 

 

 

[Kassi]

 

1 hour ago, TheLastChord said:

I agree though, that Democrats have 3 months to bring some of the points outlined by Thomas in Dobbs to the floor and make everyone take a stance. But they won't, 'cause all the Dem leadership cares about is a false sense of "electability" by remaining vague on everything and not actually doing something with the power they have now. They crave the republicans having both majorities so that Biden can sign some cute vetoes in the next 2 years and they become "brave" by doing that and they no longer have the responsability of leading a legislative agenda. 

 

It's absolutely stupid not to put same sex marriage, contraception accessability and anti-sodomy on the floor while you still can. But they're of course afraid of two things, one, of "cornering their own candidates" and two, that something might actually pass. 

woops. Responded to the wrong post.

 

Edit: To this, I wanted to say that it wouldn’t be a bad strategy, but abortion is the least polarizing out of these issues and effects the largest swath of the population. So repeatedly banging the drum on that is probably the best bet for generating outrage. 
 

Everyone already know that Republicans viscerally hate gays. Now we need them to know that they also feel the same way about women. 

[Kassi]

I don’t know. I think it’s very simple guys, let Republicans dig their own graves on this issue. They don’t need any help in that respect, they have it well handled.
 

All Democrats have to do is amplify their own words and boost the horror stories that result from red state bans.

 

 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, Kassi said:

Ok. So let’s imagine moderate Democrats draft the bill and Pelosi begrudgingly brings it to the floor (she would never, but let’s assume). 
 

Who’s to blame when at least half of the 99 members of the CPC including the Squad (so say 45) votes “No” at the behest of abortion activists and the bill tanks? Would you be willing to call out the progressives for being out-of-step with the American people? Probably not. Because, as your side would say, and have said for kooky things like the Green New Deal, at least they’re “fighting for something”. 
 

That’s the issue. However you want to twist Democrats instituting a 15 week abortion ban, at the end of the day, it’s just bad politics with no upside. 

Not sure why you’d think I’d defend the CPC when I think they’re a complete and total joke. If the CPC want to fuel the Dems-in-disarray narrative they can be my guest.

 

As far as ceding ground on abortion to Republicans goes, Democrats sealed that fate when they nominated Hillary Clinton, the biggest LOSER in the history of American politics, to be their 2016 standard bearer.  

[Kassi]

Ya’ll, who presumably follow politics closer than the GP, didn’t even know the WHPA caps abortions at 24 weeks exactly like Roe and Casey — in favor of adopting the “unlimited abortion” Republican talking point.

 

But yet expect us to believe that the general public will be able to decipher that Republicans are actually opposing a 15-week abortion ban and not… “unlimited abortions” as the GOP is still likely to call it? 

Take these two as case studies:

 

Manchin is a pro-life Democrat who stated that he would still support Dems codifying Roe, then lied that the WHPA “expands” abortion when it does the exact same things as Roe.

 

Collins is a pro-choice Republican who stated that she would support codifying Roe then lied that the WHPA would force medical workers to perform abortions.
 

These two people (three if you count Murkowski) are supposedly the holdout votes in favor of codifying Roe. They do not care. So then imagine the impending disinformation from the rest of the anti-choice Republicans if that vote comes down. And all at the expense of a unified Dem caucus and strong messaging (i.e. that Republicans oppose ANY abortion) going into November. 
 

Not worth it!

[ClashAndBurn]

Oh, if only the Democrats didn’t nominate Hillary! Then maybe abortion would actually be secure! Oh well. Guess liberals didn’t really care about women’s rights all that much!

[TheLastChord]

21 minutes ago, Kassi said:

 

Ya’ll, who presumably follow politics closer than the GP, didn’t even know the WHPA caps abortions at 24 weeks exactly like Roe and Casey — in favor of adopting the “unlimited abortion” Republican talking point.

 

But yet expect us to believe that the general public will be able to decipher that Republicans are actually opposing a 15-week abortion ban and not… “unlimited abortions” as the GOP is still likely to call it? 

Take these two as case studies:

 

Manchin is a pro-life Democrat who stated that he would still support Dems codifying Roe, then lied that the WHPA “expands” abortion when it does the exact same things as Roe.

 

Collins is a pro-choice Republican who stated that she would support codifying Roe then lied that the WHPA would force medical workers to perform abortions.
 

These are the two people (three if you count Murkowski) supposedly in favor of codifying Roe. They do not care. So then imagine the impending disinformation from the rest of the anti-choice Republicans if that vote comes down. And all at the expense of a unified Dem caucus and strong messaging (i.e. that Republicans oppose ANY abortion) going into November. 
 

Not worth it!

 

Doing nothing means allowing Republicans to continue this facade that they're pulling, which is when faced with the reaility of the consequences of the ban they want to impose, they're saying "no one's proposing a ban," while they're actually doing it  Doing nothing on same sex marriage allows republicans to continue to say that they're not looking to ban it, while at the same time their lawyers are gearing up against Obergefell and it's become a talking point in EVERY republican primary, and they all lie through their teeth about marriage vs civil unions while also holding trigger bans in place. Or does anyone think that Republican supermajorities and majorities in Red States are going to go out of their way to pass anything on this subject? 70% of Americans support it, if that's the case, then take it to the floor. Is Pelosi afraid of some democrats losing votes over that? If a Democrat is afraid to defend ssm, then maybe they shouldn't be in the party, right? Or, is she afraid that it passes(it won't) and the leadership can no longer use that as a fundraising tool?  There's no point in doing nothing regarding contraception availability if we truly believe that it's NOT a controversial topic, then why are we not codifying it? Why would it corner Democrats in any way? Why are we not taking anti-sodomy to the floor, it's absolutely ridiculous to think it wouldn't pass, right? So, why not do it?

 

What good is it to KNOW that these policies have HUGE support and not attempt to actually DO SOMETHING about it? Republicans GREATLY capitalize their popular policies, while democrats just meh their way around life for fear of consequence. 

[Kassi]

Honestly, when Democrats don’t have to rally around gay rights issues again it won’t be soon enough.

 

When they have a majority and can finally pass The Equality Act, then they can talk about what they’re doing. Gay stuff is such a political LOSER to me.  

[Kassi]

11 minutes ago, TheLastChord said:

 

Doing nothing means allowing Republicans to continue this facade that they're pulling, which is when faced with the reaility of the consequences of the ban they want to impose, they're saying "no one's proposing a ban," while they're actually doing it  Doing nothing on same sex marriage allows republicans to continue to say that they're not looking to ban it, while at the same time their lawyers are gearing up against Obergefell and it's become a talking point in EVERY republican primary, and they all lie through their teeth about marriage vs civil unions while also holding trigger bans in place. Or does anyone think that Republican supermajorities and majorities in Red States are going to go out of their way to pass anything on this subject? 70% of Americans support it, if that's the case, then take it to the floor. Is Pelosi afraid of some democrats losing votes over that? If a Democrat is afraid to defend ssm, then maybe they shouldn't be in the party, right? Or, is she afraid that it passes(it won't) and the leadership can no longer use that as a fundraising tool?  There's no point in doing nothing regarding contraception availability if we truly believe that it's NOT a controversial topic, then why are we not codifying it? Why would it corner Democrats in any way? Why are we not taking anti-sodomy to the floor, it's absolutely ridiculous to think it wouldn't pass, right? So, why not do it?

 

What good is it to KNOW that these policies have HUGE support and not attempt to actually DO SOMETHING about it? Republicans GREATLY capitalize their popular policies, while democrats just meh their way around life for fear of consequence. 

But looks like it’s all in the pipeline:

 

 

 

[rihannabiggestfan]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Oh, if only the Democrats didn’t nominate Hillary! Then maybe abortion would actually be secure! Oh well. Guess liberals didn’t really care about women’s rights all that much!

Period

 

 

[Communion]

4 hours ago, Kassi said:

Girl, what? The dramatics. All I said was that M4A, like all public policy, will be susceptible to political propaganda.

Again, the ACA had explicit failures in its mechanisms that made it not work how it needed to. I'm not sure what you think you're doing by showing how the failures of the ACA opened it to propaganda that harmed it immediately (people being told upfront that there is a PENALTY and FINE coming) but that - once the positives of the legislation could be felt - it would become popular. Popular enough that Republicans struggle(d) to dismantle it.

 

This is why I said you're unserious and removed from the reality of how working class people think.

 

The issue of the ACA wasn't that it was viewed as a radical change - it was viewed as a harmful.

This centrist, privileged "conventional wisdom" that people don't like change is not true. It's nonsense. You're not a serious person by peddling it. People loved suddenly having extended unemployment. People loved the radical change of getting a check in the mail for hundreds of dollars.  People loved the radical change of getting a bigger child tax credit. People aren't averse to change; they're averse to material harm. 

 

"People are going to hate the radical change of getting to go to the dentist now!! There'll be BACKLASH!!!"

So much talking from someone with just so little of substance to share and say. 

[Kassi]

21 minutes ago, Communion said:

The issue of the ACA wasn't that it was viewed as a radical change - it was viewed as a harmful.

This centrist, privileged "conventional wisdom" that people don't like change is not true. It's nonsense. You're not a serious person by peddling it. People loved suddenly having extended unemployment. People loved the radical change of getting a check in the mail for hundreds of dollars.  People loved the radical change of getting a bigger child tax credit. People aren't averse to change; they're averse to material harm. 

All good and well, and definitely points that I touched on:

10 hours ago, Kassi said:

just know that Republicans are all but going to annihilate the public’s taste for socialized medicine if M4A is not implemented to 100% perfection on launch. And even then, like you said, the increased taxes will present its own backlash in the IMMEDIATE election cycle following that change.

Those examples you gave of handing out FREE MONEY to people required absolutely zero sacrifice upfront. Which is why there was significant enthusiasm for them.

 

But now we’re experiencing inflation as a result of those very same policies, which has opened Democrats up to negative political press and the potential for electoral consequences. Was it the right thing to do for the circumstance? 100%. Seeing as how our economy rebounded much faster relative to 2008. However, policy making will always produce unintended side effects. And the larger the scale of the change, the larger the side effects will be just due to all of the moving parts. 
 

As far as M4A goes, there’s def going to be some growing pains as, for example:

— Millions of administrative staff transition into new roles and responsibilities OR
— Standards and quality of care normalizes as the 30 million people who previously did not have insurance (along with the underinsured) suddenly receive access to new services OR

— The tax increases finally hit peoples pocketbooks

 

None of these things are insurmountable, and many can be clearly explained (like the new taxes replacing premiums, for instance) but these types of changes DO confer a degree of sacrifice that WILL undoubtedly be exploited by right wing propaganda networks. And that’s if everything goes off without a hitch. 
 

These similar types of unintended consequences also crop up when we talk about climate change solutions that involve an abrupt end to oil and natural gas. You can literally hear people grumbling about high gas prices and rising electricity costs everyday. It’s even worse in Europe. And the gag is Dems aren’t even actively shunning oil and gas atm, it’s simply a supply crunch unrelated to anything Biden has done. Yet it’s being exploited as a political cudgel by right wing propaganda outfits.
 

So tying it back to the original message, my only point is: if Dems end up losing 1,000,0000 seats over doing Big Policy, that in itself is actually not an indictment of their leadership. 

[Communion]

5 hours ago, Kassi said:

As far as M4A goes, there’s def going to be some growing pains as, for example:

— Millions of administrative staff transition into new roles and responsibilities OR
— Standards and quality of care normalizes as the 30 million people who previously did not have insurance (along with the underinsured) suddenly receive access to new services OR

— The tax increases finally hit peoples pocketbooks

 

None of these things are insurmountable, and many can be clearly explained (like the new taxes replacing premiums, for instance) but these types of changes DO confer a degree of sacrifice that WILL undoubtedly be exploited by right wing propaganda networks. And that’s if everything goes off without a hitch. 

I'm perfectly comfortable risking discomforting *checks notes* people who make over $90,000 a year who'll feel the impact of the tax increases to make sure that everyone has healthcare. That's 100% easily a "risk" where the pro's outweigh the "con's" because I understand the relationship people have to healthcare, and explicitly not having it. Dems' two most popular policies right now that they actually put forward but have failed to pass are literally expanding Medicare to include dental/vision/hearing and having the government control drug prices through negotiations.

 

Guaranteeing healthcare is literally the most popular policy anytime Democrats do it, for very easily observable reasons. If you care so much about Democrats winning elections, one would hope you'd put your personal biases aside and put Dems' chances of remaining in power over whatever material reasons you wish to hoard healthcare and maintain the parasite industry that is for-profit insurance. 

[Harrier]

I suspect there will be an attack on gay marriage because these justices are ideologues. But, in terms of pure strategy, I don't think it's smart for Republicans to focus on this issue. Trans rights, sure, but cis gay people are too apart of everyday American life now. Everybody knows gay people, especially those under 50. We're at 71% gay marriage support now according to polling.

 

It also would be massively galvanizing for the left, more so than abortion I think. The key for Republicans in the culture war is picking battles where there is enough division, and I don't think there is strong grassroots support for this on the right either, unlike with Roe v Wade 

[Kassi]

After implementing M4A, Dems will almost CERTAINLY get kicked out of office for a little bit. Which is totally fine if the long term results turn out to outweigh the short term shock of change.
 

But then you would expect whichever congressional leader is actually able to pull off that HERCULEAN feat would be the one who you’d want back in charge for the next round. 
 

That is the same rationale applied to keeping Pelosi as leader despite 2010 midterms. Under Bush, she WON Democrats those 1000+ seats by targeting red districts, recruiting challengers, raising unprecedented amounts of money, blasting Bush & Republicans, and shaping the Democrats’ message going into 2006, and eventually 2008 with Obama’s star power.

 

Quote

After Democrats lost three House seats in the 2004 election Pelosi and other Democratic leaders made a series of strategic decisions to recruit conservative Democratic candidates, refuse to compromise on Social Security, threaten to punish House Democrats who don't vote with the party aggressively, and go after President Bush on Iraq. That contributed to the largest Democratic gains since the post-Watergate election of 1974.

 

"We had plans starting 23 months ago & when we were told we were the permanent minority to give it up accept your fate,” Pelosi recalled in an interview just before Tuesday's election. "Harry Reid and I decided we would have to create our own environment because that diagnosis was totally unacceptable."

 

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/nation-world/2006/11/11/pelosi-s-determination-makes-her/50287893007/

Using all of that political capital to do Big Policy like the ACA, which resulted in all the conservative Democrats in red/swing states who had been recruited getting voted out, was actually a GOOD thing. Sitting on political power for its own sake is useless if you never use it. 

So the short of it is that after gaining 1000 seats between 2006 and 2008, where Democrats won in places they never could normally, they basically reverted back to the mean i.e. 2005 levels. That “Omg lost 1000 seats!” talking point is so tired because it presupposes that you start counting after 2 wave elections and then stop in like 2015.   

 

cc: @ClashAndBurn

[rihannabiggestfan]

The fact that Republicans can support extremely unpopular policies, yet out-of-touch Democrats like Biden are ignoring and against extremely popular policies like marijuana legalization