Bill Clinton and Wisdom VS HRC and Smarts

[Spock]

I simply don't have time now to read back through the election threads, so this may have been done to death. However, I have been thinking back to a couple of weeks ago when Bob #'s used the timing of Hillary's laughs at some dinner with Trump to point out how smart she is.

It has been widely reported now that Bill Clinton wanted the HRC campaign to go after white working class voters, but the campaign ignored. Whatever else you may say about Bill Clinton, his political instincts are second to none.

Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with people who THINK they are the smartest people in the world, but they have no wisdom. Hillary obviously was not smart enough to bring in someone like James Carville who understands the white, working class world.

Keeping with my Flyover Nation theme. This episode also provides a crystal clear indication of how Flyover Nation would have been treated in a HRC administration.

[silverscreenselect]

Keeping with my Flyover Nation theme. This episode also provides a crystal clear indication of how Flyover Nation would have been treated in a HRC administration.

No, what it proves is that Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, were good politicians. They knew what it took to get elected.

Hillary Clinton, like a lot of others, is very good at the nuts and bolts of governance and making things work. It's how she got legislation through as a Senator and got a lot of non-glamorous things done as Secretary of State. She's a self-described wonk.

Bill Clinton is a salesman; Hillary Clinton is an engineer.

You need a good salesman to sell a car; but you need a good engineer to design the car. For the company to be successful, you ultimately need both.

"Flyover Nation" as you like to call it, would have fared much better under a Hillary Clinton administration than they will under Donald Trump. Come back in four years and see how many manufacturing jobs have magically reappeared in Ohio or Michigan, and see what type of healthcare people have when the Republicans repeal Obamacare (which is a near certainty) with nothing to replace it with other than a couple of meaningless bandaids (which is almost as much of a certainty). See what type of educational reforms the man who foisted Trump University on unsuspecting students will enact. And, on the other hand, see how many of the same people who are struggling to get by now will still be struggling to get by at virtually the same wages they are making now (that's if they're not unemployed).

But no one will take their guns away. They might not be able to afford to buy ammunition for them, but their rights will be safe.

Donald Trump turned this election into something he was very good at, a television reality show, and got himself elected (and proved once again H.L. Mencken's theory of the American public). That's not going to solve any of the problems the country faces, if he even decides to try.

[silverscreenselect]

More political wisdom from H.L. Mencken, 96 years early:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. … All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre. ... On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

[Bob78164]

[S]ee what type of healthcare people have when the Republicans repeal Obamacare (which is a near certainty) with nothing to replace it with other than a couple of meaningless bandaids (which is almost as much of a certainty).

I'm not as sure as you are that the Republicans will actually repeal the Affordable Care Act. They can only use reconciliation to repeal part of it without a filibuster. More importantly, as I understand the rules, they can only use reconciliation once per session, and I'm guessing they'd rather use it to ram through their tax plan.

Also, I'm pretty sure the 49-member Democratic caucus will stand firm in defense of the Affordable Care Act, so it will only take 2 Republican senators to defeat repeal. It's one thing to cast a "message" vote when you know the President will veto the bill. It's something entirely different to cast a vote that you know will deprive thousands, if not millions, of your constituents of health insurance. Particularly if you're in a competitive state.

A fair-sized chunk of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act is that it doesn't go far enough. If a united Republican government is actually able to force through a repeal, I think they'll find that the coalition of those who are fine with the Act and those who wanted even more (combined with those who either lose insurance themselves or have friends and family who lose it) will be a potent political force.

The Republican Senate majority is fragile. And midterms are usually hard on the party in power. This time around, whatever happens, the Republicans will have to own it. --Bob

[TheConfessor]

The Republican Senate majority is fragile. And midterms are usually hard on the party in power. This time around, whatever happens, the Republicans will have to own it. --Bob

But of 33 Senators who will be elected in 2018, only 8 are currently Republicans. That doesn't sound very fragile to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2018

[BackInTex]

Also, I'm pretty sure the 49-member Democratic caucus will stand firm in defense of the Affordable Care Act, s

They aren't going to run for re-election in 2-years? Because if you think premium shock cost the Democrats votes this year, wait until next year's increases. If a representative isn't supporting the repeal on the front page of newspapers, they will be voted out of office in 2018.

[Bob78164]

The Republican Senate majority is fragile. And midterms are usually hard on the party in power. This time around, whatever happens, the Republicans will have to own it. --Bob

But of 33 Senators who will be elected in 2018, only 8 are currently Republicans. That doesn't sound very fragile to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2018

Hadn't realized it was that bad. You're right. I don't see many pickup opportunities on that map. Maybe Arizona and Nevada. If Trump's policies activate the Hispanic vote in a way that his rhetoric hasn't, maybe Texas. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Also, I'm pretty sure the 49-member Democratic caucus will stand firm in defense of the Affordable Care Act, s

They aren't going to run for re-election in 2-years? Because if you think premium shock cost the Democrats votes this year, wait until next year's increases. If a representative isn't supporting the repeal on the front page of newspapers, they will be voted out of office in 2018.

I don't think premium shock cost the Democrats. And if you think that's an issue, think of all the people who will have to pay more money to keep their kids insured from 18 to 24 because they can no longer carry them on their employer's policy (a requirement of the Affordable Care Act). Think of all the people who will no longer receive subsidies to purchase their policies, as provided in the Affordable Care Act. Think of all the people who will no longer receive Medicaid coverage, as provided in the Affordable Care Act. There's a reason an estimated 20 million people will lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed without a replacement. And my guess is that most of them will vote Democratic if the Republicans repeal the Act without a replacement.

Not one Republican proposal includes a mandate, and without a mandate, it's economically impossible to force carriers to insure people with pre-existing conditions. So that means people with pre-existing conditions will lose coverage. And few people voluntarily relinquish coverage, so that means the people who get screwed will be people who lose it involuntarily, probably because getting sick cost them their job, or because they lost their job for some other reason and cannot afford unsubsidized individual policies. I think the Republicans will find it politically impossible to repeal the Affordable Care Act for one simple reason. It works, and it improves the lives of tens of millions of people. --Bob

[BackInTex]

And if you think that's an issue, think of all the people who will have to pay more money to keep their kids insured from 18 to 24 because they can no longer carry them on their employer's policy (a requirement of the Affordable Care Act).

A parent could typically keep them on their policy through college up to 21. Not much impact. They should be working and paying their way after that.

Think of all the people who will no longer receive subsidies to purchase their policies, as provided in the Affordable Care Act.

Think of all the people that now have to pay for those subsidies.

Think of all the people who will no longer receive Medicaid coverage, as provided in the Affordable Care Act. There's a reason an estimated 20 million people will lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed without a replacement. And my guess is that most of them will vote Democratic if the Republicans repeal the Act without a replacement.

They are already voting Democratic.

Not one Republican proposal includes a mandate, and without a mandate, it's economically impossible to force carriers to insure people with pre-existing conditions. So that means people with pre-existing conditions will lose coverage. And few people voluntarily relinquish coverage, so that means the people who get screwed will be people who lose it involuntarily, probably because getting sick cost them their job, or because they lost their job for some other reason and cannot afford unsubsidized individual policies. I think the Republicans will find it politically impossible to repeal the Affordable Care Act for one simple reason. It works, and it improves the lives of tens of millions of people. --Bob

Mandates make it economically impossible, period. It does not work and is not improving the lives of tens of millions of people.

[Bob78164]

Mandates make it economically impossible, period. It does not work and is not improving the lives of tens of millions of people.

I think the 20 million formerly uninsured people who gained insurance under the Affordable Care Act might have something to say about that.

And the individual mandate certainly doesn't made coverage economically possible. Just the opposite. We've had it for decades for people older than 65.

One consolation. If Republicans do manage to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I think that the next time Democrats control government, they'll simply pass Medicare-for-all. --Bob

[BackInTex]

I think the 20 million formerly uninsured people who gained insurance under the Affordable Care Act might have something to say about that.

Where do you get that number Bob?

And does that 20 million include folks who didn't have it before because they didn't want it and now they have it only because they were forced to buy it under penalty of law and they have yet to use it?

Of course it does. So how does now paying for something you don't need and don't use, that you didn't pay for before improve your life? The answer is simple...it doesn't. Its a flawed argument for Obamacare (can't call it Affordable Healthcare because more and more folk now are finding out it isn't).

Also, how many of that 20 million are eligible voters? Half? A forth? Less than that?

[silverscreenselect]

The Republican Senate majority is fragile. And midterms are usually hard on the party in power. This time around, whatever happens, the Republicans will have to own it. --Bob

But of 33 Senators who will be elected in 2018, only 8 are currently Republicans. That doesn't sound very fragile to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2018

Hadn't realized it was that bad. You're right. I don't see many pickup opportunities on that map. Maybe Arizona and Nevada. If Trump's policies activate the Hispanic vote in a way that his rhetoric hasn't, maybe Texas. --Bob

There's one more possibility and that is that Trump may name one or more sitting Senators to cabinet level positions. The governors could pick replacements in those states but they would have to run for the balance of the terms in 2018.

[silverscreenselect]

So how does now paying for something you don't need and don't use, that you didn't pay for before improve your life?

Most people don't use their homeowners' insurance every year, but having does improve their lives.

And I'm glad that you're psychic enough to know just which people are going to "need" health insurance in the next year and which ones won't.

[Bob Juch]

[S]ee what type of healthcare people have when the Republicans repeal Obamacare (which is a near certainty) with nothing to replace it with other than a couple of meaningless bandaids (which is almost as much of a certainty).

I'm not as sure as you are that the Republicans will actually repeal the Affordable Care Act. They can only use reconciliation to repeal part of it without a filibuster. More importantly, as I understand the rules, they can only use reconciliation once per session, and I'm guessing they'd rather use it to ram through their tax plan.

Also, I'm pretty sure the 49-member Democratic caucus will stand firm in defense of the Affordable Care Act, so it will only take 2 Republican senators to defeat repeal. It's one thing to cast a "message" vote when you know the President will veto the bill. It's something entirely different to cast a vote that you know will deprive thousands, if not millions, of your constituents of health insurance. Particularly if you're in a competitive state.

A fair-sized chunk of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act is that it doesn't go far enough. If a united Republican government is actually able to force through a repeal, I think they'll find that the coalition of those who are fine with the Act and those who wanted even more (combined with those who either lose insurance themselves or have friends and family who lose it) will be a potent political force.

The Republican Senate majority is fragile. And midterms are usually hard on the party in power. This time around, whatever happens, the Republicans will have to own it. --Bob

Since Trump said today that Obama convinced him to leave most of the ACA alone, the Republicans might get their bill vetoed.

[Spock]

SSS>>>Bill Clinton is a salesman; Hillary Clinton is an engineer.<<<

I would think even an engineer , even if she did not actively pursue white, working class votes, would not have done everything in her power to distance herself from them by saying things like:

"We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thinking back to the original post-I think the Hillary campaign thought the election was about things like "The Timing of Laughter" and 11-year old Billy Bush tapes. I don't think they realized (that in many ways) it was a referendum on the future of the Rust Belt.

[Bob78164]

I think the 20 million formerly uninsured people who gained insurance under the Affordable Care Act might have something to say about that.

Where do you get that number Bob?

And does that 20 million include folks who didn't have it before because they didn't want it and now they have it only because they were forced to buy it under penalty of law and they have yet to use it?

Of course it does. So how does now paying for something you don't need and don't use, that you didn't pay for before improve your life? The answer is simple...it doesn't. Its a flawed argument for Obamacare (can't call it Affordable Healthcare because more and more folk now are finding out it isn't).

Also, how many of that 20 million are eligible voters? Half? A forth? Less than that?

It's not hard to find estimates equal to or higher than 20 million. Here's one place. And I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them, if not all, are eligible voters. What's more, they've got friends and family. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Keeping with my Flyover Nation theme. This episode also provides a crystal clear indication of how Flyover Nation would have been treated in a HRC administration.

No, what it proves is that Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, were good politicians. They knew what it took to get elected.

Hillary Clinton, like a lot of others, is very good at the nuts and bolts of governance and making things work. It's how she got legislation through as a Senator and got a lot of non-glamorous things done as Secretary of State. She's a self-described wonk.

Bill Clinton is a salesman; Hillary Clinton is an engineer.

You need a good salesman to sell a car; but you need a good engineer to design the car. For the company to be successful, you ultimately need both.

"Flyover Nation" as you like to call it, would have fared much better under a Hillary Clinton administration than they will under Donald Trump. Come back in four years and see how many manufacturing jobs have magically reappeared in Ohio or Michigan, and see what type of healthcare people have when the Republicans repeal Obamacare (which is a near certainty) with nothing to replace it with other than a couple of meaningless bandaids (which is almost as much of a certainty). See what type of educational reforms the man who foisted Trump University on unsuspecting students will enact. And, on the other hand, see how many of the same people who are struggling to get by now will still be struggling to get by at virtually the same wages they are making now (that's if they're not unemployed).

But no one will take their guns away. They might not be able to afford to buy ammunition for them, but their rights will be safe.

Donald Trump turned this election into something he was very good at, a television reality show, and got himself elected (and proved once again H.L. Mencken's theory of the American public). That's not going to solve any of the problems the country faces, if he even decides to try.

Here are Clinton's sponsored/co-sponsored items
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary ... atus":"law"}

[Spock]

SSS>>>But no one will take their guns away. They might not be able to afford to buy ammunition for them, but their rights will be safe.<<

Keep ridiculing the historically Democrat, white working class in the industrial heartland. It worked so well for you this cycle. That strategy, obviously, has also been a winning strategy with southern whites.

[silverscreenselect]

That strategy, obviously, has also been a winning strategy with southern whites.

True, the Democratic party , starting with LBJ, began campaigning for civil rights, which was not a "winning strategy" with southern whites,

[Spock]

That strategy, obviously, has also been a winning strategy with southern whites.

True, the Democratic party , starting with LBJ, began campaigning for civil rights, which was not a "winning strategy" with southern whites,

I think the transition of southern whites to the Republicans was a generational thing. The old segregationist Democrats (who largely stayed as Yellow Dog Democrats) died off and the younger ones who are not remotely responsible for segregation are the Republicans.

We can keep re-fighting this battle of the last war if you like. But Michael Barone, who lives and breathes this stuff, is pondering whether this election is the tipping point for the conversion of Rust Belt Democrats to the Republican party.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donal ... le/2607042

[Bob78164]

That strategy, obviously, has also been a winning strategy with southern whites.

True, the Democratic party , starting with LBJ, began campaigning for civil rights, which was not a "winning strategy" with southern whites,

I think the transition of southern whites to the Republicans was a generational thing. The old segregationist Democrats (who largely stayed as Yellow Dog Democrats) died off and the younger ones who are not remotely responsible for segregation are the Republicans.

We can keep re-fighting this battle of the last war if you like. But Michael Barone, who lives and breathes this stuff, is pondering whether this election is the tipping point for the conversion of Rust Belt Democrats to the Republican party.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donal ... le/2607042

I think they'll be pretty responsive to the Warren wing of the Democratic Party. --Bob

[Spock]

Bob#'s>>>"I think they'll be pretty responsive to the Warren wing of the Democratic Party. --Bob"

All other issues aside, SSS will ridicule this and I can't expect you to understand the dynamic, but her positions on gun control are a Huge hurdle for her to overcome with the voters in question.

[silverscreenselect]

Bob#'s>>>"I think they'll be pretty responsive to the Warren wing of the Democratic Party. --Bob"

All other issues aside, SSS will ridicule this and I can't expect you to understand the dynamic, but her positions on gun control are a Huge hurdle for her to overcome with the voters in question.

Gun control wasn't the issue that turned all these voters. It was the feeling that Trump nurtured that the Democrats "neglected" them. And a lot of them were union members, which is ironic, since the Republicans want to dismantle the unions completely so that the midwestern states can enjoy the same wonderful wages and benefits that prevail in the south.

Trump convinced them that "reworking trade deals" would bring back the jobs they lost and "make America great again." In 2-4 years, they're going to see just how hollow those words were. Remember in 2004 when Bush claimed he had a mandate from the election (and he actually won the popular vote) and his first attempt out of the box was to "reform" social security. That began his second term on a downward spiral. It's fashionable to blame it all on the economic collapse, but the Republicans lost Congress in 2006, before conditions became really bad.

Trump has promised people a bill of goods that he's never going to deliver, and they will see through that soon enough.

[ghostjmf]

Problem of course is people who die when their health insurance is cancelled by our Sociopath in Chief.

I'd love to see a "take back Congress" move by Dems in next election, but 2 years of what we're already getting; kids who are citizens being told "you're being deported, ha ha" by classmates, etc is too much when 1 second of it is too much.

[Spock]

Bob#'s>>>"I think they'll be pretty responsive to the Warren wing of the Democratic Party. --Bob"

All other issues aside, SSS will ridicule this and I can't expect you to understand the dynamic, but her positions on gun control are a Huge hurdle for her to overcome with the voters in question.

I think you fall squarely into the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" school of thought. Why won't these heartland rubes vote in the way that I perceive is in their economic interests.

In the "Ape People" thread a few weeks ago, I tried to come up with descriptions of the heartland from the inside. I don't think I mentioned Joel Kotkin. But his body of work is pretty close to what I wanted.

From his post-election column.
http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00130 ... ing-elites

>>>"But outside of Illinois, a whole swath of the country, from the hills of Appalachia to the fringes of the Rockies, went solidly for Trump.

Why would that be? Start with basic economics. The economy in the nation’s interior relies on producing things—an endeavor that the coasts have largely abandoned. Energy, manufacturing, and agriculture still define these economies, and employ many white-collar as well as blue-collar workers. If you live in Texas and Oklahoma, “decarbonization” is a much less attractive concept than it might seem in Manhattan or San Francisco. <<<