2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-2016-obamacare-states

There are many Democrats who believe that, in political terms, the joke will be on Republicans if the Supreme Court adopts the preposterous claim of the plaintiffs who say that Obamacare subsidies in states without state exchanges violate the law. This is because millions of middle- and lower middle-class people who had a benefit suddenly will have it taken away. I feel like I've been to this rodeo enough times to know Republicans have a really high capacity to stick with unpopular policies if doing otherwise would cut against key ideological priorities. In functional terms, the complaints of a few hundred thousand of what Sen. Johnson and his interviewer called "sad sacks" who lose their insurance cuts a lot less than the base's ideological commitment to opposing Obamacare by any means necessary. But the calculus may be different in some key states - states that did not set up exchanges but are generally blue or purple in presidential elections.

...Here are the states without market places that seem to me in reasonable contention in 2016. As you'll see, this list reads like a list of key swing states.

Florida (1,479,439)

Maine (66,616)

Missouri (222,559)

New Jersey (211,158)

North Carolina (512,975)

Ohio (196,714)

Pennsylvania (379,607)

Virginia (320,525)

Wisconsin (184,822)

In parantheses, I've listed the number of individuals in each state currently enrolled with an Obamacare policy and receiving a subsidy.

i keep thinking about the assumption among left-leaning people that a supreme court decision that eliminating subsidies would outrage people who lost them, who would then blame republicans for it and vote for the democratic candidate instead.

i think that assumption is wrong, or at the very least not clear. admittedly my opinion leans heavily on a really cynical view of how much information voters have, the poor quality of the news they choose to pay attention to, and how much independent research they're willing to do. but if you're a low-information voter in a state that's either purple or red, surrounded by conservatives and assholes at work who have been mass-forwarding obamacare conspiracy emails for the past 5 years, and suddenly your subsidies are taken away, wouldn't your first response be to blame obamacare itself, and by extension the democratic party? all you know is that this big obamacare thing that everyone hates is taking your subsidies away because the supreme court said something in obamacare was illegal, and democrats were the one that pushed it on you. in order to place the blame on the republicans, you'd have to check at least one or two of these boxes:

- understand that the right-wing of the supreme court voted in favor of it, overruling the democrat-appointed justices
- understand that the case itself was pushed by conservative groups trying to undercut obama's signature achievement
- understand that there's an easy way for congress to fix the entire issue (by amending the law so the language regarding whether or not states that choose not to build exchanges are allowed to receive subsidies), and it will never happen because of the republicans
- understand that states could have avoided the entire issue, as ridiculous as "the issue" is, if they would have built their own exchanges, which is one assume that states led by conservatives who hate the federal government and preach States Rights at every opportunity would want to do in the first place

i think it's easy to assume that if the worst-case scenario happens and the supreme court eliminates the subsidies, everyone will immediately make the connections and blame the obvious culprit. but in order to assign that blame you have to know at least a LITTLE bit about the process, and that's a big assumption.

it's the old thing where the truth is way more complicated than a lie. assume you know nothing and believe everything. your subsidies are taken away. the political ads start becoming more and more frequent.

Republican Ad: the Democrats pushed Obamacare on you, no one likes it, we tried to stop it but were defeated, and now look at how it's FALLING APART. the highest court in the land just declared that a major section of Obamacare is illegal. Vote for republicans - we hate washington.

Democratic Ad: when we were passing obamacare, there was one little section regarding subsidies that was slightly ambiguous on paper, but the intent was very clear to everyone. republicans took that ambiguity and exploited it, and somehow a case based off of the ambiguity rose all the way to the supreme court, which is so baldly partisan and terrible that they managed to AGREE with this absurd plaintiff. there's a way to easily amend the law so that everyone can keep their subsidies, but republicans are blocking it because they don't like anything that involves the federal government helping people. vote for democrats - we'll fix this somehow and the republicans are mean! don't you see it? they're evil!

otm

i'm inclined to agree on principle but "WE gave you something, THEY took it away" is pretty clear, and also true.

"I used to be able to get insurance coverage for my diabetes. Now I can't." Wring the pathos. Dems are stupid though.

at every stage of the ACA fight I feel like a lot of liberals engaged in very silly silver lining arguments, e.g. "if the ACA gets repealed then we can just pass single payer instead!"

"i'm inclined to agree on principle but "WE gave you something, THEY took it away" is pretty clear, and also true."

who is THEY, though? if you've been paying attention, it's the republicans. if you haven't been paying attention, it got taken away because it was illegal.

um people don't give a shit about whether things are legal

people give a shit about being able to go to the doctor

But if you're adducing several decades of Democratic incompetence in paying for effective advertising and inability to respond with pithy wit to GOP accusations, Karl, you're otm.

you can tell people "you don't get to the doctor now, because your subsidies just got taken away", but the first question is "whose fault is this?", and i think the answer to that can be spun more easily by conservatives.

you can tell people "you don't get to the doctor now, because your subsidies just got taken away",

another question that would come up is "what does 'you don't get to the doctor now' mean? learn to type"

GOP cut funding to public transportation so you don't get to the doctor now

lol

and kids who want to be doctors? you're out of luck. GOP refuses to help with student loans so now you don't get to doctor

everybody w/ a clue knows the US will not embrace the socialism of single payer until the waters rise

how many ppl with a clue do you know, dr morbius

do you play mah jongg with them

heh heh Warren goes in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/elizabeth-warren-tpp_n_7120980.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

"The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret," Warren said in a statement on her website. "Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: 'We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'"

Warren is certainly on the right side here, but there's a line where populism bleeds over into "what would poll well?"

Bobby keeps the faith: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/bobby-jindal-im-holding-firm-against-gay-marriage.html?_r=0.

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

Kinda amazing that a Republican is spouting phrases like "shrieks of big business" tbh.

I should also be amazed that the contradictions inherent in:

That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians.

...doesn't make his head explode. We refuse to cater your gay wedding, but once your sham marriage is in place we certainly wouldn't dream of refusing service to you in our restaurant.

I'm not in favor of the bill but there's a difference between being forced to participate in an event that goes against your religious beliefs and providing service to someone who believes differently than you. For the former imagine if we forced Christians to photograph Satanic rituals on the principle that they can't discriminate based on faith.

participate? you're the help, you stay in back

Musicians and photographers definitely participate. Caterers more iffy imo.

and failed CEO Fiorini's in.

i like how jindal keeps repeating 'individuals and businesses'

vs 'families' for the Dems

everyone knows families are a right-wing institution

using it as a political mantra as if everyone is "in one" sure is conservative by instinct

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bhxizlcmdkkm2fxdws9npa.png

how'd all the right-wing institutions become so popular while newspapers languish near the bottom of the list? not my insight but someone noted that the academy didn't even make the list.

or FAMILIES

given the number that get started by accident

and now gays wanna start them for real

I love how flip floppy bobby digital is in his insane quest to run for president.

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?

“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”
— Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in the keynote address at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Charlotte yesterday.

are there people that still believe he can be president? has he officially announced his bid? if it seemed unlikely in 2012, it just seems hilariously impossible in 2016, and yet his name routinely gets thrown into the pool of possible candidates.

I dont think he'd be out there so much in the public trying to champion insane issues like this discrimination bill and muslim 'no go zones' if he wasnt jockeying for a run.. or hes trying to be someones vp? either way hes a fucking dunce.

i keep thinking that he's actually just the mayor of a small town called Louisiana, in Alabama, and no one has noticed because they're too busy covering his presidential ambition stunts

petraeus gets probation and a fine

all of twitter making the same joek:

https://twitter.com/search?q=petraeus%20speaking&src=typd

Pvt Manning shd've changed her name to Petraeus imo

kiriakou is in jail, they want to give james risen's leaker 20 years

Poll isn't surprising given US long-standing tendency of fetishizing the military.

Or self-made millionaires. That's basically the protagonist of every movie out right now.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507

http://i.imgur.com/HLWXDaG.jpg

blue are the democrat members of congress, red the republicans, and the lines are drawn between members of congress who vote in agreement

hey, don't knock the millionaires. i keep voting for politicians who want to lower taxes on millionaires because that's gonna be me someday really soon, as soon as i get discovered

lmao that the years of greatest 'bipartisan' 'cooperation' were the hated 1970s

cool ass find caek, thx

which one is anaphase

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/steve-king-unveils-radical-court-scheme

King wants to court-strip! lol good luck bro

Milbank's generally a not very incisive writer + Obama apologist so to see him against this = man this must really be a shit deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-an-abomination/2015/04/24/903e5a12-ea85-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

altho of course no one knows the details so his objections are broader