Were you intentionally calling out the "I'm in ur base" meme, or did my brain just spontaneously retreat to 2003 as some kind of crude defense mechanism against the horrors of the present?
Part of me has been expecting this since November.
Another part, though, doesn't understand what changed from a month ago that made it easier to pass. More moderates talked into the fig-leafiness of fig leaves, or convinced to be utter nihilists since the last not-quite-vote?
2003 did suck, but this feels more like 2005 to me.
Another part, though, doesn't understand what changed from a month ago that made it easier to pass. More moderates talked into the fig-leafiness of fig leaves, or convinced to be utter nihilists since the last not-quite-vote?
Yeah, it's confusing. Part of it is obviously the Freedom Caucus trying to deflect blame for the failure, but another part seems to be the moderates trying to do that too for reasons that are unclear to me.
It reminds me of the Tories and Brexit, actually.
So is this the end of Obamacare or can the Senate still save it? How is this being sold in right-wing media?
The Senate will either kill this or kill the filibuster for good.
I have no idea which will happen. I think your view depends on how you feel about the moral fortitude of Pat Toomey and Lindsey Graham.
My guess is that House Republican moderates are betting that if the Senate "fixes" the thing, or kills it, their votes for the current version will be forgotten. This is not a crazy bet.
"Fix" mean attracts 8 Democratic Senators.
I'm wondering what Trump is going to do when the CBO comes out with its report showing how far off this thing is from what he's been saying. Toss Ryan under the bus, for sure.
Yeah, this is going to be a hard sell in the Senate, especially once the CBO score comes out.
There's no way McConnell kills the filibuster for this bill, though. Unless maybe the Senate amends it so much that it can't possibly get through the House again.
I think the difference from a month ago is that this was even more rushed, and there's a bit of healthcare panic-fatigue - all the people who got pissed and made phone calls last time didn't quite get around to doing so yet, the second time. It certainly showed up much less in my FB feed.
10.last: My guess is, ignore it completely. How many divisions has the CBO? Second guess: defund the CBO. I'm sure there's a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse there.
It's a jaw-dropping strategy: to do something massively unpopular, ram it through and...profit?
I don't think it's likely, but if they kill the filibuster for any reason (say to get The Wall), this will go through the Senate.
Were you intentionally calling out the "I'm in ur base" meme
With the angry face emoji?
If you go back a few months I don't think anyone was thinking that the Republicans wouldn't be able to pass some sort of Obamacare repeal through the House.
This is my attempt to be positive.
Is it clear that it will need 60 votes in the Senate? I thought there was some chance of sneaking it through in reconciliation. With no text, people haven't been able to analyze.
It's a jaw-dropping strategy: to do something massively unpopular, ram it through and...profit?
Yeah, this is why it reminds me of Brexit.
19: I think the sticking point is guaranteed issue. If taking that away is in the Senate bill, that doesn't affect the budget.
19. I think it's designed to be passable in reconciliation, but the margin in the Senate is so thin and there's no gerrymandering, so 50 votes for this thing are in doubt. They can get 50 votes for something, but it probably has to scale back the tax cuts and Medicaid cuts. And drop the stuff about preexisting conditions.
If they don't drop the stuff about preexisting condition, how will they hurt sick people?
So the whole thing depends on "The Parlimentarian"? Who picks that?
And is he another of Putin's cockholsters?
Could the majority just overrule the parliamentarian by simple majority vote? I spent a while looking into the details of the nuclear option, but I don't quite understand when voting on the rules can and can't be filibustered. But it seems like one could not get rid of the filibuster in general but just instead decide that something that doesn't quite fit under reconciliation actually does.
Yeah, this is why it reminds me of Brexit.
Brexit, at least the idea of it, was and still is pretty popular.
That seems more likely. They want the filibuster to stay when they are in the minority and go away when they are in the majority. Lying is the only way to do that.
"Fix" mean attracts 8 Democratic Senators.
Yeah, I can't see that happening without massive anger from the base. Which doesn't mean it's impossible. But any Dem senator that votes for any version -- *any* *version* -- of this thing, howsoever mollified, is gonna find themselves at the business end of a tar-and-feather mob, I suspect.
So yeah, to pass, it'll either be lying (replace or bribe the parliamentarian) or nuke the lege filibuster.
Brexit, at least the idea of it, was and still is pretty popular.
Well, so is repealing Obamacare.
The Senate's already saying they're just going to write their own bill.
I thought the main drivers were:
1) Get it off *their* fucking plate (and forestall primary challenges--which for many are the real concern).
2) Freedom Caucsus on board and not being blamed per 5.
3) They can began to work on *really* cutting taxes now due to the deficit reduction BS "rules." (Of course they don't need any stinking rules when they really want to do something.)
4) Get on with the rest of their fucked up "agenda" because they've given the great fuckturd a "win." (How CNN et al are playing it, as a "win"--despite it hardly containing one whit of what he said he wanted. In part because they have all internalized the actual truth that Trump hardly gives a shit about anything other than winning and personal enrichment*.)
*And it was a potential win on that front.
And they know it sucks of course. 217 perfect number to win by.
Of course this the umpteenth repeal bill they have passed. (and of course it is very different this time.)
13: and there's a bit of healthcare panic-fatigue - all the people who got pissed and made phone calls last time didn't quite get around to doing so yet, the second time. It certainly showed up much less in my FB feed.
Absolutely. And got much, much less play in the media*. See the charts on media mentions and Google searches in this short piece at Vox.
*And a lot of that was about how it had been "fixed"** in various ways.
Fucking smiling Chaffetz wheeling himself back in after surgery on what was definitely a pre-existing condition is an image for the ages.
**Another lesson learned by Repubs; when you lie about something lie real good.
There's only one woman in the picture and she's hiding her face.
37- I see they finally found the members of the death panel! (Someone memeify that)
32 states have expanded Medicare. Would senators from expansion states really undo that?
I honestly thought they were far too bumbling to actually get this vote. It feel like an aftershock of November.
Fucking smiling Chaffetz wheeling himself back in after surgery on what was definitely a pre-existing condition is an image for the ages.
And Paul Ryan is holding a keg party.
And Frelinghuysen voted 'Yes,' that weasel.
I'm so mad I don't even know what to do with my anger.
It is a painful illustration of a difference between the parties. The Republicans were able to make the bill more conservative and get more votes. The progressive equivalent of that is unimaginable.
10 points for the first pundit to say the Democrats messed up by opposing the first version because now a worse more right-wing version passed.
David Brooks already has a wedding registry. He doesn't need points.
I'm so mad I don't even know what to do with my anger.
Same. I need to get into a more rational rage mode tomorrow. WAs thinking of donating to Act Blue. Would be nice for there to be a big bump.
Moderates: Fuck you, I got mine.
Freedom caucus: Fuck you, I'm taking yours.
50, 51: Yep, going to do it in the morning. In bed now. I 'm old and boring.
Thoughts:
They really are that crazy - I had a quarter-believed idea that the Freedom Caucus was providing cover for everyone else.
I suspect they were told, Will you personally be better off sticking with the movement and making some rich friends happy but losing a general election, or losing a primary and left with nothing?
Senators are not immune to the "we have to do something, this is something" logic that worked here. And I don't at all trust that whatever they work out will be better, or that the filibuster will survive.
Senators are not immune to the "we have to do something, this is something" logic that worked here.
Absolutely. However:
1. Senators (generally) answer to larger and more diverse constituencies than Representatives.
2. Many individual senators have already criticized the House bill, and several have said the Senate will write its own rather than taking it up.
3. Senate leadership shows no indication of trying to rush anything through the way House leadership did, which means nothing will happen until after there's a CBO score and the reality of what this bill does has started to sink in.
4. All of the major health-sector interest groups are against this bill, and per 3 above they'll have plenty of time to make their views known.
And the all important 5th factor: If the Senate fails to pass a bill, Trump can blame Democrats. Not an option in the House.
56: Well, he tried last time. But yes, retaining the ability to blame Democrats is I think the main reason McConnell is so resistant to nuking the filibuster entirely.
He can also blame Dems as the exchanges fail in rural areas.
57 It'll work: once you're in the Senate the dynamic totally changes. Our worthless press will join him in wondering why Senate Dems aren't working with moderates to come up with a workable plan.
You know, growing up in Canada, I early imbibed and internalized a massive inferiority complex. Sure, we might be for "peace, order, and good government" (boring!), but our Yankee neighbours to the south were for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (thrilling! and exciting!).
Turns out support for universal health care is best met through boring notions of good governance, not to mention a minimally coherent notion of society, the commons, the common good.
Rethinking my childhood assumptions...
53: Sent. Could not sleep and wife thew out of bed for waking her.
Surely the filibuster endures because "nuking" it means that the nuker has to give up some of their own power?
The majesty of the Senate is an impressive thing. Too bad Bob Packwood didn't live long enough to Tweet pictures of his junk.
The more I think about it, the more I think something is going to get through the Senate. Maybe not something this bad, but something bad enough to count as "repeal Obamacare."
They're a class act, House Republicans.
64 to 66. Because that's the kind of thing that changed my thinking. They have to "repeal" and they don't have to make sense.
I'm not so hung up on "each member didn't personally read the entire bill" because really that's not their job, he's right that they have staff for that. Except that 1) they made a big deal about exactly that as a bullshit attack when it was politically expedient; 2) their staff did a shit job of reading the bill if they didn't inform him that there was a provision that affects his constituents. The latter is likely related to the fact that the final text wasn't even available until a couple hours before the vote, another bullshit political point the Republicans used previously.
Fun fact: if you go to readthebill.gop the link for "Download bill" says "Last updated: 3/20/2017" I'd expect even our shit optics-obsessed pundits to call out that failure.
He knew he was hurting his constituents and he lied about it.
They don't need to convince anybody with a brain that they didn't read the bill or nobody will lose coverage. By the time you figure the large percentage of the people who are going to vote for them no matter what (and the people who know they are lying but agree with the goal), they don't need to tell plausible lies. They need to deceive about 2% to 5% of the voters.
64 is so very true.
Ominous electoral news coming out of the UK.
Ominous but entirely expected. UKIP voters are returning to the Tories en masse, Labour are a complete clusterfuck right now, and the Remain vote doesn't seem to be coalescing around the Lib Dems all that much.
Changed dynamic in the senate. Just as senators with expanded medicaid can't go with the House bill, senators in federally red states get nowhere contending the Obamacare can't be improved.
Don't overreact, though. He's got zero interest in the tax cuts and punitive part of the thing, but is genuinely interested in bringing deductibles and premiums down. I doubt that he and hard edge guys like Lee and Cruz can come to a deal, but (a) he has to look like he wants to fix the problems that exist, (b) can't look like an obstructionist taking orders from Schumer; and (c) there actually might be a 60 vote proposal out there somewhere.
Tester has a tough reelection coming, and cannot afford to lose any votes from people on expanded Medicaid, or the veterans part of the thing.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems have picked up votes, based on the narcissistic fact that I imagine I would normally vote Labour, but this time I imagine I would vote Lib Dem. Apparently introspection is an imperfect guide to voting behavior.
74 Thanks, I saw it on Twitter so the overreacting came kind of built in.
I called my Congressman's office, and discovered that I'm crap at calling. I got into an argument over minutae with a staffer.
77: I dunno. Sounds more to me like the staffer is crap at taking constituent calls. Unless the argument made you more sympathetic to your representative.
Huh, I must be doing it right. Whenever I call, I sort of say my "Please vote X on issue Y, [emotionally manipulative sentence thrown in case it helps]," and the staffer asks for my name and zip, and if the rep is already voting my way says so. There's never any room to get into an argument.
I always send emails. I know they're less effective, but I don't like making phone calls.
"Ominous" but also "not really that bad". The projection of these results to the national swing gives a Tory majority of 30 to 40 seats, nothing like the monster that was being predicted a week ago. That's a working majority, sure, but it's not a "here is your blank cheque, do what you like" majority.
78: It probably did. I probably came across like an informed moderate who was concerned about some stuff in the paper.
79: I called after the bill to make clear that my rep would pay for what he has done in 2018. I wasn't really paying attention to the news the past couple of days, and the bill went from "dead" to "passed" incredibly quickly.
I should mention that I'm in a super-red district where the Democrats didn't even field a candidate last time.
80: I hate calling so very very much, but after yesterday I am so very very angry.
Am I saying that you don't care that millions of Americans are going to die in the streets of diptheria now? Yes, yes I am.
I can't seem to keep my smart ass side in check when I call. I rationalize by telling myself that they are just noting my opposition and that making inquiries about whether the Bud Light kegger was fun is a form of self care.
53: Sent.
I also made a donation. Thanks for the link.
||
A bunch of Macron's emails just got dumped all over French social media. Good thing email hacks have never influenced an election before. I wonder who did it?
|>
Also, pretty dammed late for this to have an effect. The election is Sunday.
I think that was the point. There's a rule against campaigning in the last 48 hours before the election.
But I'm sure we can all agree that if Macron loses it was because he didn't campaign enough in Alsace.
The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team's handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition's Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, Obama's national security team decided to only allow the transition officials to view some information at the White House, including documents on the government's contingency plans for crises.
Boring stuff though. Who would ever care.
But I'm sure we can all agree that if Macron loses it was because he didn't campaign enough in Alsace.
I'm told he never even made an appearance in Wisconsin.
Why did the neoliberal cross the road?
To give a high-paid speech at Goldman Sachs, obvs.
We'll find out for sure when their email gets hacked.
There's a new reddit subreddit devoted to neoliberalism. As far as I can tell it was established by people who learned the term entirely by context, and concluded that it meant "not socialism". Obama and Hillary are apparently the great heroes of neoliberalism.
They saved the children, but not the Rust Belt children.
