So, Clearly, the Democrats Are Dead

Politics & Elections
61

R: You’re passing health care reform without involving us!
D: OK, what changes to to bill would lead to you voting for it?
R: None, I’m not voting for the bill no matter what.
D: Then why should we change the bill to be more like what you want, if you still won’t vote for it afterwords?
R: Because…hmmm, good point.

Compromise means, you offer to support the bill if changes X, Y and Z are made. If you want changes X, Y and Z, but won’t vote for the bill even with X, Y and Z, then there’s no reason to include X, Y and Z.

I think Republicans severely underestimate how much people hate their health insurance. It’s confusing, arbitrary, opaque, tedious, wasteful, and expensive.

My wife has a kidney stone, and I took her to urgent care two days ago. The doctor wanted to do a CAT scan to confirm the kidney stone. Except, how much does the CAT scan cost? The doctor doesn’t know, the nurses don’t know, the radiology tech doesn’t know. Will our insurance pay for the CAT scan? Nobody knows. We won’t know how much the CAT scan will cost us until we see the bill. But that bill isn’t the end, the hospital can amend the bill later with new charges that they forgot to include on the first bill.

Health care billing is a fucking nightmare in this country. I’m about as close to a free market ideologue as you can find. But I’d still prefer a single payer system to the crapfest we have now, because our current system is utterly broken and unreformable.

Sorry to go off on a rant, but Republican pledges to preserve the health insurance status quo–that is, “Repeal Obamacare!”–set my teeth on edge.

62

What the hell is a yellow dog Democrat?

63

He’d vote for the Democrat, even if they nominated a yellow dog.

Traditionally, it was used to describe Solid South conservative Democrats, in the pre-civil rights era.

The South was essentially single-party, with the real contest being in the Democratic primary. In the general election, the nominated Democrat always won.

“Yellow-dog Democrat” is the basis for the modern term “blue-dog Democrat,” which is a very conservative, usually Southern, Democrat, who often votes with the Republicans.

64

Originally it was a Southern Democrat that would never vote GOP because of Lincoln.

Now it’s pretty much someone who always votes for the Dems but is actually rather conservative.

65

So it’s the same as a blue dog? I think I just got conflicting answers.

66

Bricker, while I agree with you that statements like “The other party is dead!” are almost never true, I feel compelled to point out that there was significantly more basis for such a statement in 2008 than there is now. In 2008, the White House and both branches of Congress flipped to the same party, following gains by that same party in the previous election, whereas in this election, one house of congress flipped, following gains by the other party in the previous election.

67

“Yellow-dog Democrat” is a pretty outdated term, and I don’t know exactly what An Arky means by it.

But, no, they’re not the same.

A yellow-dog Democrat will vote for the Democrat no matter what, and this usually describes a voter.

A blue-dog Democrat is a conservative Democrat who will often vote with the Republicans, and this usually describes a politician.

68

Okay, thanks.

Chronos, it’s probably fair to say that the Senate would have flipped, but for some lucky electoral math (ie., there just weren’t enough seats “in play” for the Republicans to take over).

69

It’s the economy stupid. Clinton figured it out.
It can not be fixed. The Repubs can not create jobs and grease corporate outsourcing at the same time. The programs the Repubs back will not create jobs. The Dem programs that might will be rejected. It will get ugly. It will not get better.

70

Indeed, the analyses I read (New Republic?, Five Thirty Eight? Can’t remember) said that if all 100 Senate seats were up this year, the Republicans would have done even better in the Senate than they did in the House.

71

A valid point.

Why?

[BTW, why didn’t the Republican bill get anywhere in 1993?]

I agree with this. I’m not aware that very many Republicans are claiming that procedural irregularities are their core issue.

I think a few Republicans (e.g. Snowe et al) might have gone along if good faith negotiations had been done. The vast majority of Republicans would not have, because they were opposed to the bill (combined, no doubt, with some politican opportunism as well). The Democrats were unwilling to negotiate because their liberal base was unwilling to sacrifice their principles in the name of bipartisanship - they were ticked off as it was that they had to cave on the public option.

But that’s not what we’re discussing here. Even if people are whining innapropriately about procedures, that doesn’t make the proposal bipartisan. Fact is that the Republican Party in 2010 was philosophically opposed to this type of bill, and there was no way they would support it, even absent any political considerations.

Of course not.

But at the same time, if you’re proposing things that the other side won’t support no matter what, you’re not being bipartisan.

I’m not saying bipartisanship is an overriding principle. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and that’s why you went out and won the election - to do things that you believe in. But if you - or the public - do want to be bipartisan, then you can’t accomplish this by doing things that go againt your opposition’s principles. And if that is what you’re doing, then you can’t claim that your opposition’s stance proves that bipartisanship doesn’t work (as people are claiming here.)

72

So, what are you guys gonna do?

“As America, which is and always has been a center-right nation, hands a mandate to the Republican Party to roll back the socialistic…”

Yeah, I heard. What are you going to do?

"…and as we march to the bright sunshine of our future, free from the drag of tax and spend liberals…

What are you going to do? That’s what I asked you. What are you gonig to do?

“…honoring, as always, the brave sacrifice of our heroes, and committing ourselves to patriotism and good government…”

Will you just fucking tell me what you are going to do!

“…and to the workiing families of America, and the values they hold dear…”

Oh. This is what you’re going to to do.

73

You know how dogs will, when they hear a noise they don’t recognize, cock their heads to the side to look at the source of the noise? That’s exactly what I did when I read this sentence.

Republicans have made it clear that they won’t vote for a single Democrat bill. Anything which can possibly be used, in the future, to show the Democrats as successful politicians will be shot down. “This will be his Waterloo.”

How the hell does that result in “good legislation”? Nothing’s going to get done, because the Republican’s only efforts will be spent in making sure no Democrat gets anything done- simply because it was presented by a Democrat. And you’re *applauding *that fact? Actually, that’s not quite true- I’m betting Republicans will spend at least some effort in trying to drum up a reason to impeach the President.

74

I don’t think there was any realistic chance of getting Snowe, Collins, and Brown, but they dragged the Democrats along long enough to ruin the bill.

So far as the liberal base concerned, all of their principles were given away, all except for the basic idea of health care reform at all. The Democrats took the liberal base for granted the whole way. In fact, a huge reason for the unpopularity of the bill is that the majority of liberals don’t believe that the law was passed actually does anything at all.

That’s a ridiculous standard. Bipartisanship is based on the assumption that there is an openness to compromise. Pretty much everything was compromised in the health care bill. The failure of the Republicans to agree to anything was not a sign of failure on the part of Democrats to exercise bipartisanship.

The principle of bipartisanship doesn’t require you to abandon your legislative goals entirely when the other party disagrees with them.

75

Probably because the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House in 1993.

Were you in a coma recently? There were several key provisions dropped from the final bill to appease Republicans (ie., Snowe and Collins), not least of which was the public option.

76

It was Silver, but before the election.

The Republican gains in the Senate were with the lower bound of final expectations. But ISTM that the Republican Senate candidates underperformed their poll numbers for the most part.

Speculation.

Again, there’s no requirement that anyone be bipartisan. But if you want to do it, then that’s what it is.

As they did in 2010. And you’re saying it’s largely the same bill.

No need to be obnoxious - I believe the public option was dropped from the final bill to appease Democratic holdouts. IIRC it was Lieberman but possibly (also?) Nelson.

77

Yes. What is your point?

78

Right. That’s the point. In 1993 the Democrats had a true UHC bill proposed. The GOP countered with what is basically the 2010 bill. In 2010, the Democrats proposed said bill, thinking it was a compromise that could get GOP support. The GOP said Hell No! And the Democrats are accused of moving too far to the left…

79

I asked why the bill did not pass in 1993, and you responded that Democrats controlled the government at that time. But Democrats controlled the government in 2010, and they passed what you say is largely the same bill. So why didn’t they support it in 1993?

80

Because they had their own bill in 1993. You know how Republicans hate Hilary Clinton? That where it started.