How is "shutting down the government" a winning strategy?

[China_Guy]

Obama care passed, legal challenges have been shot down, it was an important part of the last election, so why do Democrats need to keep on harping about a done deal? Republicans are doing the harping and threatening to shut down the government over it.

I wish the Republicans don’t push our country over the brink, stain our reputation, add volatility to the markets, and potentially hurt our credit rating.

Or you could even have a debate and, ya know, put an alternative on the table besides repeal and no solution.

[elucidator]

…touting their support of ACA. Let’s make it a central campaign issue.

You’ll be lucky if that’s so, rather than trying to explain how your guys drove the whole fucking country over the fiscal cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@adaher

I agree with the principle, but in this case I’m not entirely opposed to it because the Democrats are in trouble over ACA and there’s nothing wrong with making them stand by it, repeatedly.

Which other principles that you hold would you be willing to compromise on or overlook entirely if it meant you got what you wanted?

:dubious:

[adaher]

@China_Guy

Obama care passed, legal challenges have been shot down, it was an important part of the last election, so why do Democrats need to keep on harping about a done deal? Republicans are doing the harping and threatening to shut down the government over it.

In other words, why do we keep on campaigning on an issue disadvantageous to Democrats?

legal challenges shot down? That’s an interesting view given that key parts of the law were overturned. I guess it’s all in the spin. Sure, the law as a whole wasn’t struck down, but I’d say the Medicare expansion was a pretty big deal, and the way the mandate was upheld was not merely technical. It fundamentally changed the nature of the individual mandate from a law to merely a tax. Congress can never, ever, criminalize the refusal to purchase insurance or any other product thanks to that decision.

Meanwhile, the contraception mandate is also wending its way through the courts. Evidently, it’s an absolutely essential piece of ACA, which of course will cease to be important the second it’s struck down.

[adaher]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Which other principles that you hold would you be willing to compromise on or overlook entirely if it meant you got what you wanted?

:dubious:

I don’t think the Republicans should actually shut down the government, and they have said over and over that they aren’t going to shut down the government.

They’ve passed a bill, the Senate will now consider that bill. If they reject it, then the HOuse will have to cave. If they pass it, then the onus is on the President if the government shuts down.

All this is is a chance to get red state Democrats on record .It’s win-win for the GOP. If five Dem Senators vote for defunding, then the bill passes Congress. That’s good. If they vote against it, then the GOP gets the issue.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@adaher

Democrats have long realized that they can often vote a certain way in DC and campaign a different way in Arkansas.

Let’s just pick one candidate specifically: Michelle Nunn. She should come out in full support of the ACA, should she not? Will she? Hell no.

Why should she come out in full support of the ACA if she doesn’t think every part of it is terrific? Is there some law or rule or contractual obligation to blindly support it just because she’s a Democrat?

I think you think that everyone else thinks like you think; they don’t.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@adaher

I don’t think the Republicans should actually shut down the government, and they have said over and over that they aren’t going to shut down the government.

They’ve passed a bill, the Senate will now consider that bill. If they reject it, then the HOuse will have to cave. If they pass it, then the onus is on the President if the government shuts down.

All this is is a chance to get red state Democrats on record .It’s win-win for the GOP. If five Dem Senators vote for defunding, then the bill passes Congress. That’s good. If they vote against it, then the GOP gets the issue.

Why did you bother typing this when it didn’t at all address the question I asked (which you quoted)?

[adaher]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why should she come out in full support of the ACA if she doesn’t think every part of it is terrific? Is there some law or rule or contractual obligation to blindly support it just because she’s a Democrat?

I think you think that everyone else thinks like you think; they don’t.

Because the law is what it is. She either supports keeping it, or repealing it, becuase those are the only two choices. Republicans take firm stands on that. Democrats should be forced to as well.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@adaher

Because the law is what it is. She either supports keeping it, or repealing it, becuase those are the only two choices. Republicans take firm stands on that. Democrats should be forced to as well.

Are you sure you live in the United States of America? Because those two choices aren’t the only options available.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Because the law is what it is. She either supports keeping it, or repealing it, becuase those are the only two choices. Republicans take firm stands on that. Democrats should be forced to as well.

:rolleyes:

Virtually all Democrats voted to continue the funding and virtually all Republicans voted to defund it in the latest bill.

[adaher]

Therefore, we can safely assume that all Democrats are opposed to repealing ACA. So attacks on all Democrats for supporting it are fair.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Therefore, we can safely assume that all Democrats are opposed to repealing ACA. So attacks on all Democrats for supporting it are fair.

:rolleyes:

Repeating that does not make the plan that the Republicans are pushing now to be a winner, It is bound to be a failure in the economical front, a failure in the legislative front, and a failure among the people that will see how the law benefits them.

[adaher]

But how will it do among people who the law hurts?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

But how will it do among people who the law hurts?

As I have seen, many do report that doing the humane thing sometimes does mean to have to pay a little bit more. As I have seen in other discussions most will benefit, a good number will be affected but as Massachusetts showed already, after several years, the “hurt” is not a deal breaker.

BTW that was explanation was in the link already made so that question of yours is not even good in a rhetorical sense.

[adaher]

Funny, the unions don’t seem to be seeing this as a humane thing. They are avoiding calling for repeal because they don’t want to undermine their President, but they are very unhappy right now at the dagger pointed at their benefits that ACA represents.

But I guess they should just take one for the team, eh?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Funny, the unions don’t seem to be seeing this as a humane thing. They are avoiding calling for repeal because they don’t want to undermine their President, but they are very unhappy right now at the dagger pointed at their benefits that ACA represents.

We had this conversation before, in the end the Unions support the act with reservations. The funny thing as usual is how you forget what was discussed before.

@adaher

But I guess they should just take one for the team, eh?

As I pointed before but you also forgot. So perhaps they are indeed looking to help more workers that way, perhaps they are more emphatic than you assume; but as usual that does not fit the conservative narrative so it has to be ignored or forgotten as usual.

[Broomstick]

@adaher

Now all you need to do is convince Democratic officeholders that the public is behind them. The hiding and waffling is really getting tiresome.

The Democrats hold the Senate and White House, that might give them the notion that in fact the majority fo the public IS behind the Democrats.

Of course that can change, but right now I can see where someone just might have the silly notion that the party holding the presidency and one of the two components of Congress has some public backing.

[adaher]

That’s a dodge. Do they have public backing for the health care law? Judging by how they refuse to commit to it back home, they have zero confidence that this is so.

[Broomstick]

@adaher

Democrats have long realized that they can often vote a certain way in DC and campaign a different way in Arkansas.

And this is different than Republicans… how? Funny how it’s the Republicans who came up with the acronym RINO, you don’t hear much if anything about DINO’s, do you?

Let’s just pick one candidate specifically: Michelle Nunn. She should come out in full support of the ACA, should she not?

Um… why? Since when does being a member of a party requiring blind, unthinking, lockstep obedience? Even the Republicans don’t have that (even if some of the extremists would like that).

It is entirely valid to have reservations about something you vote “yes” on. That’s why we have these things called “amendments”.

@adaher

I don’t think the Republicans should actually shut down the government, and they have said over and over that they aren’t going to shut down the government.

And yet, they threaten to shut down the government…

In fact, in the past they HAVE shut down the government. Therefore, why should I believe your assertion that they won’t?

All this is is a chance to get red state Democrats on record.

Funny… I’m in a red state and my Democratic reps don’t seem to have a problem stating their position on ACA on their websites, along with all their other positions.

And given that the GOP has brought anti-ACA legislation before Congress over forty times prior I’d think everyone is already on record about this issue.

It’s win-win for the GOP. If five Dem Senators vote for defunding, then the bill passes Congress. That’s good. If they vote against it, then the GOP gets the issue.

Or maybe the GOP looks like idiots for voting yet again to get rid of something they’ve tried what, 40+ times before to get rid of without success. Seriously, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is irrational.

@adaher

Because the law is what it is. She either supports keeping it, or repealing it, becuase those are the only two choices.

You do understand laws can be modified, yes? Or did they not teach you about how the government works when you went to school?

A lot of Democrats support ACA with something called “reservations”, meaning they don’t think it’s perfect and should be modified but still find it better than the alternatives presently on the table. Compromise is necessary for the government to function. This is how the world works in reality.

ETA: I just want to clarify that “compromise” does not mean “cave in to what the GOP wants without getting jack in return”. That seems to be another word Republicans have trouble understanding these days.

[adaher]

There’s a lot of laws people would like to see changed, but it’s only on ACA where Democrats in competitive districts just can’t bring themselves to just say, “I support Obamacare.” They dodge, they weave, they bob, and then they criticize the law in harsh terms. But we all know they’ll always vote to keep it, because they SUPPORT it. So what’s wrong with admitting it?