jerseyhoya wrote:Lol phatj's mom is sexist against women

It's hilarious that you think this is a good dig because tons of women are sexist against women

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:There's now zero chance Obama will be re-elected.

This is a really good point. Bush's unpopularity which blossomed in the year after he was reelected had no substantial impact on his ability to achieve his policy priorities through his second term or on subsequent US elections. Don't know why we would care about Obama becoming unpopular.

Do Dems need to worry about backlash in 2016? I know it is a ways off but I am sure the GOP is already stockpiling "ACA ruined the world" commercials to run against Clinton, Warren, whomever.

The problem with Obama being unpopular is he'll no longer be able to get all the landmark legislation through the House which he otherwise would.

JFLNYC wrote:The problem with Obama being unpopular is he'll no longer be able to get all the landmark legislation through the House which he otherwise would.

Obama's dinged-up popularity is pronounced terminally debilitating, while the unprecedented unpopularity of loathsome toads like Ted Cruz, or ciphers like John Boehner, seemingly augments their power

what a world

JFLNYC wrote:The problem with Obama being unpopular is he'll no longer be able to get all the landmark legislation through the House which he otherwise would.

It does hurt his chances for passing comprehensive immigration reform or even something less ambitious like the DREAM Act. A large motivating factor coming out of the 2012 elections on immigration reform was a fear the GOP needed to embrace CIR or doom itself to irrelevancy, which was always a bit overstated. To the extent that Republican members of Congress feel like their prospects are improving for 2014 and the 2016 Presidential election that pressure dissipates.

The "pressure" for the Republicans to pass anything to do with immigration is and always has been about strategists and potential presidential candidates thinking it would be unwise to write off a large and growing segment of the electorate. The counterforce against their doing so arises from the fact that their majority hails from districts packed full of older white people who take people like Steve King seriously, and dislike them some furriners. Obama's approval rating could be zero or 100, and neither factor would change.

To assert that Obama's unpopularity endangers some Democrats next year, on the theory that voters can't punish him but can get to them, makes sense. If things stay bad enough for long enough, he could drag them down in 2016 too. (Though even in 2008, I think the Republicans' problems were less about Bush per se than the crash.) But that's about it. The jihadis in the House and the Cruz faction in the Senate never was going to pass anything Obama supported.

If the Reps were smart, they'd take this opportunity to actually do something, rather than continuing to harp on Obama's shortcomings and opposing everything. They've pretty much denied themselves the opportunity to take credit for anything, and credit taking usually a pretty big part of a winning strategy.

dajafi wrote:The "pressure" for the Republicans to pass anything to do with immigration is and always has been about strategists and potential presidential candidates thinking it would be unwise to write off a large and growing segment of the electorate. The counterforce against their doing so arises from the fact that their majority hails from districts packed full of older white people who take people like Steve King seriously, and dislike them some furriners. Obama's approval rating could be zero or 100, and neither factor would change.

To assert that Obama's unpopularity endangers some Democrats next year, on the theory that voters can't punish him but can get to them, makes sense. If things stay bad enough for long enough, he could drag them down in 2016 too. (Though even in 2008, I think the Republicans' problems were less about Bush per se than the crash.) But that's about it. The jihadis in the House and the Cruz faction in the Senate never was going to pass anything Obama supported.

There is a sizable minority within the House GOP caucus that favors immigration reform. Some GOP reps from Florida, Texas, Arizona and California have big Hispanic populations in their districts, others have national ambitions (Ryan for example), and then some moderates from the Northeast and Midwest who like the Chamber of Commerce and whatnot. If Obama was riding high I think there'd be a ton of pressure to pass something, which might've ended up being closer to the DREAM Act than CIR, but I think something would pass. There were realistic expectations before the shutdown (voiced by people like Ryan, close to leadership) that the House would take up immigration reform this fall, but the last week or two seems to have killed that for the time being.

TenuredVulture wrote:If the Reps were smart, they'd take this opportunity to actually do something, rather than continuing to harp on Obama's shortcomings and opposing everything. They've pretty much denied themselves the opportunity to take credit for anything, and credit taking usually a pretty big part of a winning strategy.

Did OK in 2010 running mainly just bitching about things. And the House passes plenty of stuff, it just doesn't have a chance of passing the Senate.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:The "pressure" for the Republicans to pass anything to do with immigration is and always has been about strategists and potential presidential candidates thinking it would be unwise to write off a large and growing segment of the electorate. The counterforce against their doing so arises from the fact that their majority hails from districts packed full of older white people who take people like Steve King seriously, and dislike them some furriners. Obama's approval rating could be zero or 100, and neither factor would change.

To assert that Obama's unpopularity endangers some Democrats next year, on the theory that voters can't punish him but can get to them, makes sense. If things stay bad enough for long enough, he could drag them down in 2016 too. (Though even in 2008, I think the Republicans' problems were less about Bush per se than the crash.) But that's about it. The jihadis in the House and the Cruz faction in the Senate never was going to pass anything Obama supported.

There is a sizable minority within the House GOP caucus that favors immigration reform. Some GOP reps from Florida, Texas, Arizona and California have big Hispanic populations in their districts, others have national ambitions (Ryan for example), and then some moderates from the Northeast and Midwest who like the Chamber of Commerce and whatnot. If Obama was riding high I think there'd be a ton of pressure to pass something, which might've ended up being closer to the DREAM Act than CIR, but I think something would pass. There were realistic expectations before the shutdown (voiced by people like Ryan, close to leadership) that the House would take up immigration reform this fall, but the last week or two seems to have killed that for the time being.

TenuredVulture wrote:If the Reps were smart, they'd take this opportunity to actually do something, rather than continuing to harp on Obama's shortcomings and opposing everything. They've pretty much denied themselves the opportunity to take credit for anything, and credit taking usually a pretty big part of a winning strategy.

Did OK in 2010 running mainly just bitching about things. And the House passes plenty of stuff, it just doesn't have a chance of passing the Senate.

I don't consider the House passing bills they know won't get out of the senate passing things really. The problem with 2010 was that the Republicans didn't control anything, so their bitching campaign was semi-defensible. But with approval ratings of Congress in the single digits, I don't think the current strategy is working. Certainly, it's likely to be a problem in the long run when you've got to have a Presidential candidate who is for some things.

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't consider the House passing bills they know won't get out of the senate passing things really.

I understand your comment about this, but it doesn't seem like a particularly compelling response to the point. If the Republican House is only truly governing when they pass bills that the Democratic Senate will also pass, do you hold the Senate to the same standard? I'm guessing not, because you think the House is unreasonable.

I believe that's called begging the question... the House is ineffective and not governing as more than an "opposition to Obama" party, because everything that they pass is unreasonable because it won't get passed by Obama. If you were neutral on the bills they were passing, then equal blame would have to go to the Senate for not following through.


At least the Senate passed their first budget bill in 4 years this year! Nevermind that they are supposed to do it yearly. It would have been a trap had they done it for the 4 years of Obama's first term!

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't consider the House passing bills they know won't get out of the senate passing things really.

I understand your point about this, but it doesn't seem like a particularly compelling response to the point. If the Republican House is only truly governing when they pass bills that the Democratic senate will also pass, do you hold the Senate to the same standard? I'm guessing not, because you think the House is unreasonable.

I believe that's called begging the question... the House is ineffective and not governing as more than an "opposition to Obama" party, because everything that they pass is unreasonable because it won't get passed by Obama.

Your comparison doesn't work because it's much, much easier for the majority to work its will in the House. Pretty much by definition, anything that gets through the Senate is at least plausibly bipartisan, because without 60 votes it won't even get to the floor. So Boehner can, and does, schedule 40-odd votes to repeal the ACA so "newly elected members can cast that vote." But you can't really do that kind of silly stuff in the Senate.

So yes: since the House is effectively so much more Republican than the Senate is Democratic because of how it's organized--never mind the actual, y'know, votes cast in 2012--it actually is fair to assert that the House is only governing when they take up bills the Senate also might pass.

if ENDA was put up for a vote in the House, it would pass. Why it isn't put up for a vote is pure politics based on the districts some Republican members come from…but they don't even know their own party as a majority of Republican voters are for the legislation, let alone independents and Democrats.

I have no problem with a Republican majority passing Republican legislation. Again, I think they're missing opportunities here. Craft an immigration reform bill that works for key Republican constituencies (agriculture, hospitality, tech, and the business community in general) and add enough carrots (like a limited amnesty) for a Dem Senate to go along. Work through coalitions, make compromises. That's how things get done.

Same on the budget--a tax reform bill that significantly cuts corporate rates will limiting loopholes--go as far in the Republican direction as you think get away with, but get something. Dare Reid and Senate Dems to hold up bills that have broad support rather than stupid shit that caters to not even the center of your own party but only its extreme base.

try to get an immigration bill by this guy, just try

TenuredVulture wrote:I have no problem with a Republican majority passing Republican legislation. Again, I think they're missing opportunities here. Craft an immigration reform bill that works for key Republican constituencies (agriculture, hospitality, tech, and the business community in general) and add enough carrots (like a limited amnesty) for a Dem Senate to go along. Work through coalitions, make compromises. That's how things get done.

Same on the budget--a tax reform bill that significantly cuts corporate rates will limiting loopholes--go as far in the Republican direction as you think get away with, but get something. Dare Reid and Senate Dems to hold up bills that have broad support rather than stupid shit that caters to not even the center of your own party but only its extreme base.

This gets at the contortions some here put themselves through in defense of the rancid kernel of the House majority that insists the majority's purpose is to 'anti-govern' (e.g., 40 bajillion ACA repeal votes with nary drop of sweat expended on moving constructive amendments/alternatives - and do NOT call the Upton bill a constructive amendment...)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/v ... html?hp=r3

McAllister is an outsider, but not a tea party radical burn everything down type of outsider. Hmm. Moderate outsider wins conservative LA district. By a lot.

@jbarro (Josh Barro)

Republicans so alarmed about a few million people having to change health plans rarely seem to notice 47 million with no health plan.

Noted liberal Josh barro

td11 wrote:@jbarro (Josh Barro)

Republicans so alarmed about a few million people having to change health plans rarely seem to notice 47 million with no health plan.

Noted liberal Josh barro

Well, Barro is the kind of self-labeled conservative who mostly gets noticed for saying stuff that will endear him to liberals. He's a smart guy, but no more credible as a "conservative critic of conservatives" as Mickey Kaus or Lanny Davis is on the other side. (That you see more Barro types than Kaus types these days suggests the big change in the Beltway mindset these last ten years.)

The point, though, is really important. The vast majority of those helped by this law are politically voiceless and (relatively speaking) powerless. The vast majority of those hurt by the law are middle class and up. It's not to minimize their difficulties, which in some cases are pretty serious and almost totally amount to an unnecessary self-inflicted wound by the managerial clown crew in the Obama administration. But those who are significantly helped by getting enrolled into Medicaid aren't getting NYT op-eds the way the educated middle class woman whose insurer canceled her plan did.

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/vance-mcallister-neil-riser-louisiana-99952.html?hp=r3

McAllister is an outsider, but not a tea party radical burn everything down type of outsider. Hmm. Moderate outsider wins conservative LA district. By a lot.

I was gonna go ahead and make some lame crack (quack?) about McAllister probably having Duck Dynasty's endorsement - and then I read the article...