Signifying Nothing – your 3rd “debate” open threadedness

by

by Ugh

Fnck it, let's do this thing.  I'm looking forward to a substantive discussion of Trump's tax reform plan and Hillary's infrastructure spending proposal.  My guess is that Hillary may have the upper hand in the discussion because she better understands the basics of american civic institutions in general and the operations of the federal government of the United States in particular, which is, of course, all anyone really cares about in this election cycle.  She's also not stark raving mad, but YMMV.

How many weeks until this misery ends, or perhaps begins?  

Open thread. 

187 thoughts on “Signifying Nothing – your 3rd “debate” open threadedness”

  1. the misery will not end.
    as Atrios recently noted, it took years for the media to stop treating Sarah Palin’s every utterance and FB post as important news.
    even if he loses, we’ll be dealing with Donal Trump Person Of Importance, for years to come.

  2. I’m going out to run a roleplaying game tonight instead. It’s set in a bleak dystopian future in which “everything that that could have gone wrong, did go wrong”.
    Don’t fuck this up, America.

  3. Ahh, Shakespeare from Macbeth. I think of this more a Ubu Roi situation. A plot summary from
    http://www.jackstigner.co.uk/ubu-roi/ubu-roi-plot-summary.html
    Act I
    Pere Ubu, along with Mere Ubu and Captain Bordure, plot the killing of the King of Poland. Pere Ubu poisons Bordure’s men, who have assembled at a sumptuous feast, by providing an excrement covered toilet brush for all to taste. The act ends with Pere Ubu demanding that Mere Ubu, Captain Bordure, and the other conspirators “swear to kill the king properly.”
    Act II
    Pere Ubu attacks and kills King Venceslas of Poland. Queen Rosemonde and her youngest son, Bougrelas, escape to a mountain cave, but the Queen dies. The dead ancestors appear to Bougrelas and demand vengeance, giving him a large sword.
    After some prompting from Mere Ubu about sharing some of his newly ill gotten wealth, Pere Ubu throws gold coins to the crowd. Several are trampled in the mad rush. Pere Ubu’s response is to provide more gold as a prize to whoever wins a footrace. Afterwards, Pere Ubu invites the assembled multitude to an orgy at the palace.
    Act III
    Pere Ubu and Mere Ubu discuss what to do now that they are the sovereigns of Poland. Pere Ubu has decided, now that he no longer has any need of Captain Bordure, not to elevate him to the rank of Duke of Lithuania. Bordure ends up in Pere Ubu’s dungeon but escapes to ally himself with Czar Alexis. Meanwhile, Pere Ubu executes all of Poland’s nobles so that he can then lay claim to their properties. Then, he follows suit with the magistrates and the financiers, claiming a reform in both the law and financial dealings of the government. When he realizes that all of the government workers have been killed, Ubu shrugs and simply says that he himself will go door to door to collect the taxes.
    Bordure sends Ubu a letter in which he reveals his plans to invade Poland and re-establish Bougrelas as the rightful King. Ubu weeps and sobs in fear until Mere Ubu suggests they go to war. Pere Ubu agrees but refuses to “pay out one sou” for its expense. With the cardboard cutout of a horse’s head around his neck, Ubu leads his army off to battle against Bordure, Czar Alexis, and Bougrelas.
    Act IV
    Mere Ubu searches the crypt that holds the remains of the former Kings of Poland for the Polish treasure. She discovers it among the bones of the dead kings but cannot carry it all out at once. When she says that she’ll come back tomorrow for the rest of the treasure, a voice from one of the tombs shouts, “never, Mere Ubu.” Bougrelas advances to Warsaw and wins the first battle. Mere Ubu escapes amid rifle shots and a hail of stones. Meanwhile, Pere Ubu and the czar do battle in the Ukraine. The tide shifts, first one way, then another. Finally, Pere Ubu and his army are bested. They escape to a cave in Lithuania. A bear attacks while Ubu is in the cave with two of his soldiers; Ubu climbs to safety on a rock, and, when asked for help, responds by mumbling a Pater Noster (“Our Father, who art in heaven… “). After the soldiers kill the bear, Ubu falls asleep, and the two men decide to escape while they have the opportunity.
    Act V
    After crossing Poland in four days to escape Bougrelas and his army, Mere Ubu arrives at the cave where Pere Ubu is sleeping fitfully. Unseen by her husband, Mere Ubu pretends to be a supernatural apparition to make Pere Ubu ask forgiveness for his “bit of pilfering.” Instead, Mere Ubu is treated to a litany of her faults. When he discovers that it is Mere Ubu in the cave, Pere Ubu throws the dead bear on top of her. Not taking any chances that it might still be alive, Pere Ubu climbs up on the rock and begins the Pater Noster routine again. Angered that Mere Ubu laughs at him, Pere Ubu begins to tear her to pieces. But, before he can do much damage, Bougrelas and his army arrive and soundly beat the Ubus, who just manage to escape to a ship on the Baltic Sea. Pere Ubu plans to get himself nominated Minister of Finances in Paris so that the whole sordid series of events can begin again..
    From wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubu_Roi
    According to Jane Taylor, “the central character is notorious for his infantile engagement with his world. Ubu inhabits a domain of greedy self-gratification”.Jarry’s metaphor for the modern man, he is an antihero — fat, ugly, vulgar, gluttonous, grandiose, dishonest, stupid, jejune, voracious, greedy, cruel, cowardly and evil… “There is”, wrote Taylor, “a particular kind of pleasure for an audience watching these infantile attacks. Part of the satisfaction arises from the fact that in the burlesque mode which Jarry invents, there is no place for consequence. While Ubu may be relentless in his political aspirations, and brutal in his personal relations, he apparently has no measurable effect upon those who inhabit the farcical world which he creates around himself. He thus acts out our most childish rages and desires, in which we seek to gratify ourselves at all cost”. The derived adjective “ubuesque” is recurrent in French and francophone political debate.
    life imitating art, I’d say…

  4. “we’ll be dealing with Donal Trump Person Of Importance, for years to come.”
    I just hope that law enforcement gets to deal with Trump as a “Person of Interest” for years to come.
    sanbikinoraion: sounds like the game Paranoia. Tried it once, but it was too dark and deadly. Call of Cthulhu is more cheery and optimistic, I think.
    pro tip: don’t let anyone use the “Nose Gun”.

  7. In the mess in Syria, as so often, there are two major threads.
    Those who are external players (which certainly includes the US, Russia, and Turkey; but also arguably ISIS) have what Donald’s link calls a pure narrative. That is, there is some overarching principle which governs both what is going on and how they see all of the players involved.
    Those with the misfortune to actually live there, however, have a rather different take. Mostly what they would like is to just be able to live their lives in peace. Since that is not on offer, their choices come down to which force is less awful. “Awful” including both how they behave while the fighting is going on, and how they have demonstrated they will behave if/when they take control — locally, not just nationally.
    Anyone on the outside would do well to give a little thought to the locals and their views. But generally don’t.
    Just as they would do well to gvie some thought to what can really (as opposed to in their ideal worldview) be accomplished given where things are today. But generally, they spend more atttention on justifying their existing positions and alliances.

  10. I’m on Day 10 of bronchitis. The doc said I should be feeling better Real Soon Now (though I won’t be better all the way for almost another 2 weeks). I guess I am: I can sit for a couple hours at a stretch. But my rib muscles are *killing* me, and there’s still a lot of gunk that needs to be coughed out.
    Do any of you know a breathing technique that could do the eject work of coughing without straining the ribs?
    If I watch tonight, it will be with Scotch in my hot-honey-&-lemon. Trader Joe’s Blended Scotch is a VERY good deal, inexpensive yet drinkable.

  13. Only SOME grocery stores! In NJ, independent grocery stores can sell liquor (if can get license). Grocery chains may sell alcohol in only TWO (2) of their stores in the state, & have to pick which ones. Therefor, the nearest TJ’s to me sells wine, but the nearest Costco does not.

  14. It’s really amazing (from the left coast) how many bits and pieces of Prohibition/Puritanism still remain in other parts of the country.

  15. “Do any of you know a breathing technique that could do the eject work of coughing without straining the ribs?”
    My always sick friend swears by micro coughing–little hacks without the full force of a cough. It seems like the reverse of singing from the diaphram. I have no idea if it really works.

  16. Well, no matter how the debate goes, at least the Cubs are back scoring runs again. (Taking up-sides where I can find them.)

  19. Good God! We just had the first time in my memory where a candidate formally refused to say that he would respect the results of an election.
    Every time I think, can it possibly get worse? it does.

  22. Chief Wiggum is a freaking genius compared to He, Trump. Ralph Wiggum is more like it.
    I still can’t get over the pass He, Trump gets for asking “Why haven’t you solved this, that, or the other thing in the last 30 years?” He, Trump seems to think that any ole 1st lady of Arkansas, FLOTUS, junior NY Senator, or SoS can snap her fingers and cause mountains to crumble, skyscrapers to rise, and Real Murkins to gain IQ points.
    Ten years from now, very, very few people will be willing to admit they voted for He, Trump.
    –TP

  23. “Ten years from now, very, very few people will be willing to admit they voted for He, Trump.”
    I disagree.
    Folks who vote for Trump will wear it proudly.

  25. Folks who vote for Trump will wear it proudly.
    Many of them will be dead. Not sure those living will still be fired up. I just hope the best for the next four years, because that’s when the trouble could happen.

  26. Oh dear, Ugh. You missed Trump praising Assad’s leadership abilities. I guess mustard gas is a macho thing in his mind….

  27. My always sick friend swears by micro coughing–little hacks without the full force of a cough. It seems like the reverse of singing from the diaphram.
    I’d agree about ‘micro’ coughing – if you can, breathe out about two thirds of your breath, and then cough (using your diaphragm).
    Works for me; I think you are much more likely to strain your rib (intercostal ?) muscles when they fully extended.
    Takes a bit of practice, but it gives some measure of control over your coughing.

  31. I started the second article, Donald, but found it hard to read past “freshly osculated behind”. Really?

  32. We just had the first time in my memory where a candidate formally refused to say that he would respect the results of an election. Every time I think, can it possibly get worse? it does.
    Well, as others have said elsewhere, this is the logical result of the GOP constantly pushing the terribly false “voter fraud” line. That they all seem taken aback that someone in a position of power has taken them seriously is evidence of their own personal avarice in pursuit of power, their cowardice, and of course additional proof (not that there was any need for more) that they knew they were lying about it all along.
    Indeed, if you believe the voter fraud lie and that it altered the outcome of the election, then it is incumbent on you to not accept the reported election results – they would not reflect the will of the voters. So it’s entirely consistent with this worldview for Trump to say something like “I will wait and see.” In fact, under that worldview, that is the responsible thing to say – he’s not saying “I will reject any result in Hillary’s favor” (although perhaps he is implying it), he is saying he will take into account the evidence that arises between now and election day and then decide.
    Of course, he doesn’t give a sh1t what kind of things his statements on “rigging” the election lead to in the meantime.
    All that said, I expect Trump to concede the election the evening of November 8th (assuming the result is in line with current polls) and that will be that. Could be wrong of course.

  33. More broadly, the GOP’s nationwide effort to disenfranchise African Americans is a stain on this nation and is the modern equivalent of the poll tax (which led to the enactment of the 24th Amendment – would any GOPer in Congress vote for that today, BTW?) and other Jim Crow laws used to keep African Americans from voting.
    And the GOP wonders why they can’t attract minority voters (actually they don’t).

  34. All that said, I expect Trump to concede the election the evening of November 8th (assuming the result is in line with current polls) and that will be that. Could be wrong of course.
    In all likelihood, Trump won’t be the next Al Gore. He’s probably going to lose bigly, in an outcome so decisive that it could not be the result of any sort of “rigging.”
    In a sense, that will be way out of questioning the election, or at least the winner. He can save face by saying that, while there still may have been an effort to fix the election, he would have lost anyway because the vote was so one-sided.

  35. When I have had a terrible cough, I have found temporary relief by steaming my sinues for awhile. I get in the bathtub with lots of very hot water. I wish you well on your cold; being sick is a miserable experience.
    My biggest concern about HIlary is that she will not exercise the best judgment abou when to do a military interventions and when not to. Otherwise I think she will be fine as a President.
    I am expecting her to appoint Justices so we have a Supreme Court that will overthrow voter suppression laws gerrymandering and maybe even Citizens United, thus saving representative government from the Republican effort to turn the US into a one-party state.

  37. I haven’t watched the debate yet, and will wait another couple of hours til Mr GftNC gets back and we can watch it together (he’s never been that interested in US politics before, but has become somewhat infected by my obsession).
    However, I have read lots of commentary etc, and I have a linguistic question to put to US ObWi people:
    I speak pretty good American because I grew up in Hong Kong watching mainly American TV, and can always translate for friends in e.g. US drugstores (UK: chemists). However, in light of all the outrage I have read this morning about Trump calling HRC a “nasty woman”, it is accentuating an impression I gained not long ago that “nasty” has different connotations in the States than in the UK. The previous incident was a reference to “nasty” sex, which in context I gathered meant non-vanilla, extra-“dirty”, transgressive sex. But now I would be very interested to hear in what subtle ways your “nasty” differs from our “nasty”.
    In English English, nasty when used of a person means unkind, malicious. Nobody could say “nasty” sex, and expect it to be understood as anything other than perhaps sex involving some cruelty, if it had any meaning at all. But if someone X called someone else Y a nasty woman, it would kind of make sense if Y had just made a barbed or insulting comment about X. Nobody would be surprised, or find it particularly unacceptable. So I would be grateful to be enlightened on this admittedly minor, but to me interesting, point.

  38. He can save face by saying that, while there still may have been an effort to fix the election, he would have lost anyway because the vote was so one-sided
    That doesn’t strike me as Trumpy enough. I think he’ll say that the election was stolen, but that as a patriot and for the good of the country he’ll technically concede.
    Or he just won’t, and the adults will just continue on as if he did.

  39. The previous incident was a reference to “nasty” sex, which in context I gathered meant non-vanilla, extra-“dirty”, transgressive sex. But now I would be very interested to hear in what subtle ways your “nasty” differs from our “nasty”.
    looks like you get it.
    ‘nasty’ usually means unkind and malicious – also filthy and disgusting, generally unpleasant. and that’s certainly the meaning Trump intended. Trump thought Clinton was being nasty because she was insulting him with facts.
    but the sexual ‘nasty’ works the same way ‘dirty’ and ‘filthy’ do – they all imply a kind of knowing, enthusiastic, transgression.

  40. GftNC: “Nasty” can carry either connotation in the US. In fact, “doing the nasty” means having sex. (I would have thought that usage was originally British, in fact! And maybe it is!) But saying “he was nasty to me” means just what you say it means in UK English. He was mean, unpleasant, accusatory, hostile, said bad things about me.
    You wrote this: “But if someone X called someone else Y a nasty woman, it would kind of make sense if Y had just made a barbed or insulting comment about X. Nobody would be surprised, or find it particularly unacceptable.”
    I didn’t watch the debate, but I did see that clip. What Clinton said was in fact a barb, and intended to be so, but it was based on Trump’s own past words and actions. So I think it *was* kind of nasty, but meant to be the goading dig that it was, and at the same time a little verbal dig is so much less than he deserves that it’s laughable.
    Things that make it notable (my hasty theories):
    1) Trump is such a nasty piece of work that any truth one could tell about him is going to sound nasty.
    2) In Trumpworld, anyone who challenges him is nasty on the face of it.
    3) He talked over her to say it.
    4) In a campaign where she has presented herself as calm, reasonable, wonky, and he has presented himself as a rabble-rousing no-nothing vicious (nasty!) sh!thead, he has a lot of damned gall (to quote a phrase) calling her nasty. Projection much?
    5) And here is the most subtle aspect of it: “Such a nasty woman” carries something different than if he had said “Such a nasty person,” or “She’s so nasty!” Saying nasty *woman* matters. It’s a darker version of condescending phrases like “lady author.” It means to imply that *women* aren’t supposed to fight tough. A man making that remark wouldn’t have been remarkable, but a woman….argh, clutch your pearls folks.
    P.S. Back to the question of the two meanings of nasty: you might also hear someone say “That’s nasty” in a tone of disgust – meaning some spoiled food or something like that.
    [See cleek commented while I was rambling on…]

  41. OK, it looks like the difference is the “filthy and disgusting, generally unpleasant” aspect, which is completely lacking in the English “nasty” when describing a person, except to the extent that English people are consuming American culture and gradually starting to pick this stuff up. So it made sense that Trump called HRC a nasty woman because she had just “insulted” him (actually, I gather she had just correctly said he would try to wriggle out of paying higher employer taxes if he could), which in England would just have been considered a childish response from him, but the extra American nuance explains the generally outraged response to his remark.
    Thanks cleek

  42. JanieM, completely fascinating, thank you.
    You’re right about “doing the nasty” actually, but that is a rare and now sort-of archaic usage, perhaps from as late as the 60s.
    Re your p.s., we might use it too in that context to describe e.g. spoiled food, but not of a person.
    Your point 5 is very well taken however. And I’m also hearing a sort of unspoken “old”, as in “nasty old woman”, which could play into old archetypes of hags, crones etc.
    Very interesting. Again, thank you.

  43. “Juliet. Such a nasty woman. She made Romeo kill himself. And believe me he could have done better. Look at her.” #TrumpBookReport
    — Catherine Q. (@CatherineQ) October 20, 2016
    From here.
    Twitter is a horrible thing. Except when it’s giving me my laugh of the day/week/etc.

  45. I take a certain connotation of inherentness – or at a minimum, a durative connotation – away from “nasty” in this sort of context. Nasty is something you are more than something you do. You don’t just suddenly do something nasty; that reflects either inner character or long-standing patterns of behavior.
    Take all of that with a grain of salt, though. I’ve never been great at appraising fluency of particular lexical usages, and this is not dissimilar to that…

  46. Yes, NV, I think you’re right, in both countries’ usage. Thanks.
    More Twitter excellentness, albeit from horrible source:
    “Better a nasty woman than a Nazi man.”

  47. And here we go with the revisionism regarding what votes for Clinton signify, and it’s as brashly disingenuous as it was inevitable.
    Could you expand on this, NV? I’m genuinely curious.

  48. nv — your conntation of inherentness rings true to me. It also seems like the implication of inherentness makes the meaning shade from unkind toward disgusting.

  49. Sapient–I’d recommend just skipping over that sentence. The article is about the various stances people on the left have taken on Syria and how both sides (the pro-and anti-interventionists) tend to be dishonest about some very important points. Some of the anti-interventionists have become pro-Assad. He criticizes himself for being insufficiently honest about the brutality of the Assad regime, or of glossing over it. It’s pretty rare (in my experience anyway) to find people who write about Syria who don’t portray at as Good vs Evil, when the unfortunate reality is that it is Evil vs Evil vs some other Evil and look over there, more Evil. The chief exception would be millions of innocent civilians caught in the middle and even then some of them are partisan and blind to the evils of their own side. There was an example of that in a recent New York Review of Books interview with a Syrian poet living in Egypt of Alawite background–her family and friends think of her as a traitor for being critical of Assad. We rarely get that viewpoint (Syrians committed to Assad) in the mainstream US press, but on the other hand in some left circles they adopt that pro-Assad position in its entirety. These competing propaganda narratives are what dominate the bulk of what I read about Syria. That’s why I recommended the three pieces.
    I just watched an interview with the first lady of Syria (forgot her name). It was fascinating. She is very smart, very articulate and to hear her speak the Syrian government is engaged in an attempt at saving the country from terrorists while doing as little damage as possible. What struck me was that (except for what I assume is a British accent) she could easily be a Western politician representing her country on an American TV interview, except that we would never see this here. The point is not that her viewpoint is right. I suspect she is willfully self-blinded to what the Syrian and Russian military do. The point is that if we saw people like this we’d see an unmistakeable resemblance to Western government spokespeople who defend the indefensible and sound like they are civilized folk doing their best in very hard circumstances. They might see themselves in exactly that way.

  51. For British political context for “nasty”, cf Theresa May’s comment about the Tories being seen as “the nasty party”.

  52. ” It means to imply that *women* aren’t supposed to fight tough. A man making that remark wouldn’t have been remarkable, but a woman….argh, clutch your pearls folks.”
    I would be more inclined to interpret his statement as misogyny if he hadn’t insulted absolutely everyone that ran against him in the last year with a stream of pretty similar insults. He is just a boor.

  55. Nigel: exactly. The “nasty” party because picking on and oppressing the poor, the disabled etc, not in some weird, even if implied way, filthy and disgusting.

  60. American english needs a word as all-round useful as “cheeky”
    Snarki, for many people, “uppity” fills the bill. At least as they usually use it.

  62. wj, Snarki is right. Uppity only approximates one of the many meanings of cheeky, and probably not even the most common one.

  63. FYI, the most common one is probably a sort of combination of bold, saucy (not in the sexual sense), daring (not in the physical sense), and teasing (not in the sexual sense). Nigel can confirm or deny, add or subtract if he feels like it.

  64. I took the “bold and sassy” part to be the main one. And to have serious overtones of someone “acting above his station.” Hence my analogy to “uppity.”
    But then, I have limited enough experience with British English to know I’m out of my depth here.

  65. Hannity calls the GOP to punish the ‘traitor’ Ryan and to replace him with … Louie Gohmert.
    Yes, please!!! Vivat asparagus!

  67. It will be amusing if, having refused to reject Trump, Ryan goes down in flames anyway for being less than whole-hearted in his embrace. I don’t think he will actually lose this time, but the chances of his going in 2018 the way Cantor did aren’t zero.
    I also wonder if, as a result of the fanaticism of the far right part of the Republican Party in the House, it turns out to be impossible for Ryan or any other member to get a majority of the votes for Speaker. Does anyone know if the House rules allow for a Speaker elected by a plurality?

  69. In which case, I wonder who the Democrats could come up with (NOT Pelosi!) who could attract enough moderate Republican votes (and there are some still) to get elected.
    Fun times!

  71. And it’s very freaking scary that he’s not right wing enough for Hannity. Again, Trump’s best legacy for the GOP is to make people like Ryan and Pence look like moderates and/or reasonable people.

  72. Could you expand on this, NV? I’m genuinely curious.
    The article is trying to equate the reading of tea leaves with reading a large-print manuscript with ample footnotes and appendices. It’s making very definite statements about who Clinton supporters are, and what they stand for – not once does it mention the yuge elephant in the room when it comes to the size and breadth of Clinton’s support. It’s a paean to the majoritarian status of liberal sensibilities and centrist Democratic values as demonstrated by Clinton’s polling margins… versus Trump.
    Its largest sin is that it wants to make sweeping, definitive analysis of something that isn’t done yet, but even if we forgive that it’s still appalling because it’s ahistorical in the extreme; it is seeking to derive generalizable meaning from a narrow context.
    I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing from Yglesias and his ilk. Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics. That’s like saying Chirac’s 82% to 17% sweep of Le Pen in the second round of French voting in 2002 was a ringing endorsement for the UMP. You’re not going to be able to tease apart support for Clinton and opposition to Trump going forward from November – not least because we’ve been lectured endlessly that not supporting Clinton was supporting Trump ever since he became the leading Republican primary candidate – but that’s not going to stop the Third Way DLC centerists both inside and outside the Beltway from making declarations as fanciful yet decisive as Bush fils’ claim of a clear electoral mandate for his agenda.
    So, disingenuous but predictable, with more of the same to follow.

  73. What makes this year especially historic — at least potentially?
    The last time the Cubs won the World Series was . . . before women gained the right to vote. Coincidence? I wonder….

  74. Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics.
    I agree that it isn’t a decisive endorsement of everything Clinton stands for. But the Yglesias article you cited doesn’t really say that. He describes a “coalition of minorities” that rejects what Trump stands for. That seems fairly accurate to me.

  75. Yeah, I don’t really get it. The article seemed mostly to be one about the demographics of the voters, not so much what they stand for, aside from some degree of inclusivity.

  76. Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics.
    neither will the fact that her opponent was utterly beyond the pale be a valid reason to think that she was only elected defensively. so, let’s not get all preemptively dismissive here.
    because, she hasn’t actually won yet.

  77. Just watched the debate. I actually think Trump managed to seem more substantive and controlled than the commentariat (and his previous performances) had prepared me for. I’m glad HRC’s so far ahead, because I wonder whether his performance in this debate will really turn off the general population in the way that the analysts have supposed. What he said about conceding the election is indeed very shocking, but I think the incessant drumbeat of “it’s all rigged” for the last couple of weeks may have brainwashed large parts of the population who might therefore be having doubts about the legitimacy of the election.
    Apart from all of this, however, what is so very clear is that HRC is a tremendously impressive performer; her mastery of policy, foreign and domestic, and her intelligence, discipline and control, are truly impressive.

  78. What article did you read?
    You may have missed some of the subtler points, such as the part where Clinton voters are separate and distinct from those to her left:

    Clinton’s silent majority is at times caricatured by her critics on the left as complacent…

    Or the part where Yglesias draws causal connections between policy concerns and supporting Clinton:

    Clinton’s voters, like Trump’s, experience economic challenges. But they are responding mostly by backing a candidate who is offering specific forms of assistance…

    Or the thread woven throughout that conflate people who poll as voting for Clinton with people who support Clinton in particular, and then proceed to paint pretty pictures (using Nice Respectable Liberal terms of endearment) of the thought processes of the unified mass:

    Clinton’s silent majority values competence and experience, and recognizes that it’s no coincidence the first plausible woman president had to be the most well-qualified candidate in generations and equally un-coincidental that in the hands of her enemies her great asset has been relabeled as a weakness.

    […]

    Clinton’s coalition is under no illusion that all is well in America, but it does believe the country is improving in important ways. It’s skeptical of the impulse to flip the table over and hope for the best, and absolutely allergic to the view that the current version of the United States is a fallen one and the country reached its peak in the days of Mad Men and union factory jobs.

    […]

    You can’t profile “Clinton Country” or the “Clinton voter” as a single kind of person or place. Clinton Country, instead, is like America itself — vast and diverse, incorporating a staggering range of disparate individuals and localities that do not have an enormous amount in common beyond allegiance to a common set of political ideals.

    Etc.
    Seriously, it isn’t subtle. At all.

  79. neither will the fact that her opponent was utterly beyond the pale be a valid reason to think that she was only elected defensively.
    cleek, since I’ve become a huge fan of Clinton’s, perhaps I am overly sensitive to the fact that some Clinton voters don’t really accept her except as a lesser evil. I find that frustrating, but I acknowledge it.
    NV, I agree with Yglesias about most of this, even taking into account the fact that not everyone loves her. What do you disagree with? Do you want to go back to Mad Men days?

  80. Another example, NV:
    But they are responding mostly by backing a candidate who is offering specific forms of assistance
    Do you not support her specific forms of assistance? Which do you not support?

  81. so, let’s not get all preemptively dismissive here.
    because, she hasn’t actually won yet.
    This, from you. Wow. Just… wow. Do you not remember your stances on such matters during the primary, or are you only assuming I (or more likely, the third parties to the discussion) don’t remember your stances during the primary?
    I’d remind you again that you don’t get to have it both ways – you can’t demand everyone vote for your favorite to oppose their opponent, and then declare those votes as support for they themself – but since you’ve decided that it’s never over ’til it’s over and we mustn’t be preemptively dismissive, the importance of consistency obviously wouldn’t be a persuasive argument.

  82. sapient, you’re not even trying to address my point. Instead, you’re arguing that disagreeing with your triangulator is rejecting in toto Every. Last. Thing. she agrees with to any degree. Do you really want to play the game where we pick and chose laudable or unobjectionable stances and try to conflate non-support of other policies as being a rejection of the former? Really? That playground game is your chosen rhetorical gambit?

  83. Also, I must say… your last two post is a pitch-perfect example of what I’m objecting to in the Yglesias article, albeit impressively even less subtle.

  85. That playground game is your chosen rhetorical gambit?
    You’re the one who pointed to those things as examples of why Yglesias is trying to wrongly describe Clinton voters. I think he’s pretty much correct. I’ll just leave it at that since you don’t want to discuss any of the policies that might attract people to Clinton. You’d rather just point to your gripes. That’s fine – I am not going to change your mind or especially your attitude.

  86. Did you notice the look on Trump’s face as he gritted his teeth and tore his notes in pieces at the end of the debate?
    His face was like Pesci’s in Goodfella’s just before he and de Niro took that made man down in the bar by kicking the stuffing out of him with their Florsheims.
    If you like nuclear mushroom clouds over your cities, you’ll want this killer as your President.
    I wonder if he took Kelly Ann Conway, whose husband collects fake Clinton dic pics to enliven the electoral process of this now disgraced country, by the neck and threw her up against a wall the better to grope her for daring to muzzle him last night.
    Twenty days until we spray for bugs.

  87. “That’s fine – I am not going to change your mind or especially your attitude.”
    It’s been months, if not years since anyone was in danger of changing anyone’s mind in a significant way, in almost every forum. But it is very interesting to experience the emotion behind many of these exchanges.
    Several weeks ago the third party candidate was incredibly important because, despite Trumps grotesque caricature of a Republican politician, Hillary couldn’t really pull away. There was emotion, perhaps vitriol, in the challenge to wasted votes and reliving Perot’s impact.
    Hillary spent a few million dollars having her surrogates trash Johnson, they blocked him out of the debates and his momentum outside a few states here and there ebbed.
    So now its a less emotional argument for “making a statement”. It is now the piling on school of politics, we don’t really want to work for national conciliation, we want to bury those people. We want them to feel awful and completely unrepresented. But that’s a poor winners strategy rather than the panic stricken strategy of a month ago.
    Now that Hillary has won the panic has been replaced with simple enmity for anyone who dared/dares to continue to point out her flaws.
    At some point we will have to learn when not to kick the other side when they are down, something Obama never learned. When you win you are responsible for helping the other team feel better about their place in the game. You understand their emotional reaction, help them get a win, celebrate what you do accomplish in a way that helps them share in that success. Every President in my lifetime until Obama understood that. Our country would be better served if this one remembered it.
    From what I have seen the last week, we aren’t close to that.

  88. Ah, I see. The highly general aspects of her voters are being described in ways that are overly complimentary of Clinton (for you). I didn’t pick up on it because it doesn’t really bother me, but I can see it once you point it out.
    I still wouldn’t say Clinton voters are being said to be separate and distinct from everyone to her left. I think the point was that what’s being described as her silent majority, as opposed to all of her voters, is characterized a particular way by her critics on the left that is distinct from her critics to her right, who don’t really care which of her voters they’re describing, since they all just suck.

  89. MattY was doing what pundits often do–he was projecting his own views on tens of millions of people and claiming those views are therefore correct because they are supported by The People and those opposed are vile Trump supporters (grumpy old white racist guys) and arrogant young males (Bernie Bros). Stereotypes all the way. Matt Y has a set of views on how things should work– by an amazing coincidence, he finds that a vast number of very diverse people all have essentially the same views, are voting for Clinton for the same reasons and those reasons match up pretty closely with how Matt Y thinks. This wasn’t analysis. It’s preaching.
    A somewhat different view–
    http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/10/how-do-gender-and-age-shape-electoral.html

  90. At some point, Marty has to cite an example or two of Obama kicking “the other side when they are down”. I’m especially interested in what “down” means in a political environment where “the other side” controls both Houses of Congress.
    –TP

  91. Hillary spent a few million dollars having her surrogates trash Johnson, they blocked him out of the debates and his momentum outside a few states here and there ebbed.
    I’m trying to figure out what possible reason Clinton would have for doing this.
    It seems vastly more likely that Johnson would take votes from Trump than from her. To the point where she would probably end up winning more states with him being a significant vote-getter than she will this way. So where is her motivation?
    Maybe you think that he should have a real shot at winning the election. But the reality is, the chances of him even getting to second place in the electoral vote count are pretty slim. Not the way the world should be, I’d agree. But how it is.

  92. …those opposed are vile Trump supporters (grumpy old white racist guys) and arrogant young males (Bernie Bros). Stereotypes all the way.
    But, if you’re talking about who is more vocal and gets more press, isn’t it they who do, even if as stereotypes? Do you disagree with the notion that Clinton voters are more diverse and less vocal?

  93. TP,
    The last day when it was clear that the ACA was going to pass the Republicans tried to submit a significant number of amendments. All of them were voted down by every Democrat. Some, as I recall, were pretty good. Reid, obviously with Obama’s agreement, made sure that no Republican could take a single bit of good from that.
    Yes, they opposed it and even with the amendments they were not going to vote for it, but it was an opportunity lost to build a little goodwill.
    I don’t remember them all but there was a string of chances for him to give a few wins, but even in the SOTU’s he always took anything he gave. He constantly called them out. Instead of laying out an agenda and reporting on progress he always made sure to include the chastising of the Republicans, “take the bill I submitted and pass it today” blah blah. It was always the hammer.
    And, the Republicans never got over that and moved on. Even in his second term, they couldn’t regroup because the damage had been done, to the country. The stalemate in the first term, the pushing through the ACA, that was broadly unpopular, in what was universally perceived as a backdoor way to do it and more were the coalescing factors of the Tea Party. Then the Republicans hands were tied to respond to any overture, the damage had been done.
    Down, in this case, was in the first term when any hope of creating anything good for the country was ruined by Obama with Rahm and his quotes, as divisive as McConnell’s, “elections have consequences” (which we all learned all to well come midterms and 2012) and a “crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.
    The difference between Obama and McConnell in the beginning is that Obama won, for a brief shiny moment he controlled the Senate too. McConnell’s sour grapes sucked and Obama was an ungracious winner. The combination brought us to here.

  95. wj,
    All the polling 8 weeks ago showed Johnson taking more votes from Clinton. He was, and is, popular with millennials that she couldn’t bring on board from Bernie. He was too socially tolerant to put any dent in Trumps core support.
    In almost every poll where they went from head to head to including him the race between her and Trump got closer.
    So, she did indeed have to do something about him.

  96. Hush– I was disagreeing with Matt’s notion that he can read the minds of the people who vote for Clinton. I’m voting for her. And the Berniebro category was a primary stereotype that, among other things, ignored all the non white millenials that voted for Sanders. I also doubt one can lump all Trump supporters into a neat box either, except maybe the box labeled ” not very good political judgment in presidential candidates”.
    The Carl Beinart piece said that among millenials, Clinton is stronger with males than females. I didn’t look at his sources, but that surprised me a little.

  99. I find that frustrating, but I acknowledge it.
    as do i.
    but that’s different from granting the maximally-Pure position that, should she win, her Presidency will be less than legitimate.

  100. you can’t demand everyone vote for your favorite to oppose their opponent, and then declare those votes as support for they themself
    which i haven’t done. so, bravo for your strawcraft.

  101. Marty
    http://www.americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/
    http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments/
    It seems as though the GOP’s definition of compromise and collaboration involves the president and the Democrats dropping all of their ideas and passing the Republican platform.
    If you have examples of amendments that were good ideas but were not passed, it would be nice to identify them. I know that if I were a Democrat, I would not trust the Republicans to give me a clean amendment, especially days or hours before a deadline, that didn’t have some sort of poison pill built in to f**k everyone over.

  102. Obama was an ungracious winner. The combination brought us to here.
    it really didn’t.
    Obama would’ve been the best partner the GOP was likely to ever get in a Democratic President. he’s pragmatic and willing to work. but the GOP decided they’d get more votes demonizing him than working with him.
    they’ll do it to Clinton, too.
    and they’ll come up with some mythological reason to blame her – especially in 2018. she’ll be the Wicked Witch of the West Wing*.
    that’s if some dipshit “patriot” doesn’t kill her first. (but if that happens, don’t blame decades of violent rhetoric from the GOP. that would be insensitive to their economic plight, or Obama did it, or something)
    * ™ 2016, cleek.

  103. I have to say I’m continually baffled by Marty’s sense that some kind of collegial, let’s-all-get-along bonhomie was on offer from the (R)’s after Obama’s election.
    Likewise his sense that every new administration over the last couple of generations, up to but notably excluding Obama, went out of their way to make sure the losing side had no hurt feelings or ruffled feathers.
    We’re obvious not living in the same country.
    Seriously, I think Obama just gets up your nose. That’s fine, but you don’t get to re-write history to support your personal animus toward the guy.
    The question I have is who gives a shit if Trump does or does not accept the electoral outcome, should he lose.
    This isn’t the United States of Trump. He gets to play the game, but he doesn’t get to make the rules.

  104. The reason to care about Trump accepting the results is not Trump. It’s what the lunatics among his true believers might decide to do as a result of him rejecting the results.
    Of course, some of the nuts will go crazy regardless. But Trump can make things go much worse.

  105. “I have to say I’m continually baffled by Marty’s sense that some kind of collegial, let’s-all-get-along bonhomie was on offer from the (R)’s after Obama’s election”
    Do you actually read what I write? Or have you just taken to giving the stock answer when raise this subject? I never said it was on offer, it was what Obama promised to deliver.
    If you only strive to take what’s “on offer” you aren’t much of a leader.

  106. “it was what Obama promised to deliver”
    takes two to tango.
    “It’s what the lunatics among his true believers might decide to do as a result of him rejecting the results.”
    if people want to start a civil war, then i guess we’ll have a civil war.
    they’ll lose.

  108. A couple of Saturdays ago, my landline rang. The caller ID was “ISSUES AND ANSWERS”. I took a chance that this was an actual pollster and not a telemarketer, and answered the phone.
    The pleasant young man assured me up front that he was not calling to sell me anything, and asked if I had few minutes to answer a survey on “politics and coffee.” Well, who could resist an invitation like that?
    And it really was what he said. There were 4 separate sections. Two were about coffee, e.g. “How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?”, “What kind of coffee machine do you have access to at work?” and so on: mostly straightforward questions not much open to interpretation. The other two sections were explicitly on the presidential race. Many of those questions were also straightforward, e.g. “Who do you plan to vote for?”, but one question made me scratch my head.
    The headscratcher was: “Will you be voting for Hillary Clinton because a)you support her, or b)you oppose Donald Trump?”
    “Young man,” I said, “I hope you understand how ill-posed that question is. Unless I can answer both a) and b), feel free to click whichever box you like.” I don’t know which box he checked.
    I tell this story to make something totally clear: I am not for Hillary because she’s the bee’s knees or the cat’s pajamas. But neither do I think she’s a pig’s breakfast. Overall, she’s a broccoli quiche: nourishing and generally tasty, but with some objectionable ingredients. She is not the lesser of two evils; on the whole she is the lesser of two or three unalloyed goods — but lobster thermidor is not on the menu.
    He, Trump, on the other hand is more disgusting than a budgerigar’s vomit. If he were running against a fencepost … well, actually let me savor that image for a moment.
    I still have not figured out whether the survey was sponsored by Keurig or the RNC or who. But if you come across some news bit that says something of the form “People who drink more than 3 coffees per day support Clinton 68-32”, be aware that I was one of the data points in it.
    –TP

  109. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html#comments
    Meanwhile, after the Trump circus is sent packing, the really serious people in Washington think we just haven’t been intervening enough in the Middle East. I love the smell of a bipartisan consensus in the morning.
    Sarcasm aside, these humanitarian interventionists are liars. Scum. Professional hypocrites. I haven’t heard any of the bomb Syria crowd say one frigging word about Yemen, where we were on the side of the people killing the civilians and creating the famine which has killed an unknown number of children.

  110. Do any of you know a breathing technique that could do the eject work of coughing without straining the ribs?
    Make bringing up the phlegm easier.
    — avoid dairy until you feel better
    (thickens mucus)
    — get genuine pseudoephedrine (Sudafed)
    NOT THE “PE” STUFF
    by talking to your pharmacist
    — get guaifenesin over the counter, as
    Mucinex tablets or as “tussin”
    or “tussin” DM cough syrup, with or
    without dextromethorphan.
    — get halls “blue” menthol cough drops;
    they taste terrible, but open you up
    and suppress the tickle
    — take sudafed and guaifenesin as directed.
    (guaf tablets are hard on my stomach;
    eat a couple crackers, maybe, or some
    banana)
    — wait at least half an hour,
    suck cough drop or two
    — get in the shower, running the water
    over your face. increase heat until
    it’s almost uncomfortable. cover your
    mouth and nose with your hands,
    breath the warm moisture-laden air
    slowly, deeply, for five minutes or so.
    Go lay down on one side. Cough gently a couple times. Inhale as deeply as you dare.
    Cough again.
    Repeat on the other side.
    I’ve had pneumonia three times as an adult;
    this worked best of all the regimes I tried
    for the dreadful lingering congestion stage.

  111. the Third Way DLC centerists
    fearless prediction:
    HRC will turn out not to be the person that her enemies, either those on the left nor those on the right have taken her to be. Some of them will eventually come to realize that.
    She may have been Third Way / DLC twenty years ago, or even ten, but that was then.
    (Mostly, I think, that was Bill. She’s a separate person.)
    Mostly, she _learns_, and this is not the America that once made the DLC seem necessary to preserve the existence of the Dem Party. Further, Sen. Warren will continue to show Dems what can be done if only one has spine and conviction.

  112. Some of them will eventually come to realize that.
    A subset of those may be willing to admit it to themselves. A subset of those might even admit it to anyone else.

  113. “Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be messy. And painful”
    yes, should it come that, it would be both.
    and yes, i framed the question as ‘who gives a crap’, so your point is apt.
    all of that said, i’m freaking sick and tired of tip-toeing around a bunch of knuckleheads who think they’re william freaking wallace and can’t engage in the political process without threatening to kill people if they don’t get their way.
    my assumption – not my fear, my assumption – is that trump will lose, and that his BS about the election being rigged will inspire some of his followers to violence.
    somebody’s probably going to get hurt. because trump is an intemperate, irresponsible demagogue, and his entire MO consists of inflaming people’s sense of resentment and victimhood.
    and there’s nothing the rest of us can do about it.
    the spectacle of the nation’s punditry wringing their hands about trump ‘keeping us in suspense’ makes me want to puke.
    i’m not in suspense. if trump loses, then clinton is POTUS, and Trump can go pound sand. there is no question there.
    if he wants to make a mess of it, so be it. that would be completely in character. he’ll make a big stupid mess and the rest us will clean it up.
    if his followers want to go to war about it, literally or otherwise, then i guess we’ll go to war. literally or otherwise.
    but our process is what it is. he’s elbowed his way into it, but he doesn’t get to change the rules if the outcome doesn’ please him.
    seriously, his comments are an affront to the nation. the man is a bully, and his presence as a candidate for POTUS frankly offends me.
    i’m looking forward to not having to listen to his petulance on a daily basis.

  114. Marty: the appropriate response to any senator that says “I’m NEVER going to vote for your bill, but please add these amendments” is, to quote Cheney: “GFYS”.
    GOP edits and changes were welcomed and discussed for the health care bill, in committee, just as long as it there was some possibility that it would result in bipartisan support. But once it became clear that the GOP was bargaining in bad faith? F’em.
    And it’s just too bad the GOP got their precious fee-fees bruised. If they can’t play in the big leagues, they should stay home.

  115. As a native of the southern part of the United States, I cannot discourage strongly enough anyone from using the word “uppity” as a synonym for “cheeky”. “Uppity” was used for years by racists to describe black people who had the temerity to insist on being treated equally under the law. But maybe young people wouldn’t pick up on that. I recently read an article about young black men not understanding why older black men react the way they do to being called “boy”.

  117. “But once it became clear that the GOP was bargaining in bad faith? F’em. ”
    First, bargaining in bad faith is not what happened here. The Republicans said all along that they didn’t support the very concept of the ACA. However, they did see some ways to make it potentially less disastrous, which it may well still turn out to be overt time, so they offered amendments.
    F’em isn’t leadership. Which just reinforces my point. I have dealt with lots of people in my career who had a vested interest in me failing. Very early I learned that the way to deal with those people was to constantly work to include them in successes. Over time they always became less reflexively against what I was trying to accomplish.
    Keep in mind that the Republican House leadership sacrificed their career in pursuit of some level of bipartisanship in an effort to govern.

  118. Okay, I retract my characterization of the “GOP” bargaining in bad faith. Marty is correct, they were always open about their total opposition.
    At the same time, there WERE individual GOP senators of the less doctrinaire variety (Collins, for example), that did act as if they would vote for the ACA with suitable modification, but then reversed themselves and fell in line with the rest of the GOP. THAT was bad-faith negotiating.
    “F’em isn’t leadership”.
    Well, then I guess I’ll just have to resign my position of Lord High Master & Leader of the DemonRATic Party. It was fun while it lasted.

  119. The Republicans said all along that they didn’t support the very concept of the ACA.
    which is funny because a number of them, including many who are still Senators today, liked it just fine when sponsored a health care plan that was very similar to, though not identical to, the ACA.

    Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.
    Among other features, the Chafee bill included:
    * An individual mandate;
    * Creation of purchasing pools;
    * Standardized benefits;
    * Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
    * A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
    “You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the Affordable Care Act,” Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told PunditFact via email. “The guys were way ahead of the times!! Different crowd, different time, suffice it to say.”

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
    that all changed, for some reason when Obama took office. hmmm. hmmmmmmmm.

  120. “that all changed, for some reason when Obama took office. hmmm. ”
    Or when they changed the point of the bill from catastrophic coverage to day to day coverage, Took away vouchers in place of direct cash payments for the insurance the government chose, created the purchasing pools within a state rather than taking down those state barriers to commerce, and built in fines through the IRS for the mandate.
    It was a fundamentally different idea.

  121. How many weeks until this misery ends, or perhaps begins?
    Got my Colorado ballot this week, filled it out, and returned it. Twenty-two candidates for President, normal-looking stuff for various legislative seats, seven state-wide initiatives, two referred issues from the legislature, and a half-dozen or so local tax issues. But now I can ignore all of the election stuff.

  122. Mostly, she _learns_, and this is not the America that once made the DLC seem necessary to preserve the existence of the Dem Party.
    …an argument not borne out by her time in the Senate, her time at State, or leaked off-the-record discussions of her positions then or now. She shows every sign of being a DLC acolyte – what she appears to have learned is that it’s not an overly popular stance, and it pays to conceal such tendencies. Which is why it’s important to consistently attack her every sign of triangulation; she responds to public opinion, even if she keeps drifting back towards her roots when it lets up.

  123. Which is why it’s important to consistently attack her every sign of triangulation; she responds to public opinion, even if she keeps drifting back towards her roots when it lets up.
    As someone who is voting for HRC and who thinks she’ll make at least a reasonably good president, I have no problem with this.

  124. all of that said, i’m freaking sick and tired of tip-toeing around a bunch of knuckleheads who think they’re william freaking wallace and can’t engage in the political process without threatening to kill people if they don’t get their way.
    Russell, I couldn’t agree more. But while I don’t want to cater to them, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them and what they might do.
    Don’t let their possible reaction control what the rest of us do. But do remember, when deciding what to do, to make provision for the possibility of an insane reaction.

  125. “do remember, when deciding what to do, to make provision for the possibility of an insane reaction.”
    I’ll just subcontract Count to prepare for an appropriately forceful response to an “insane reaction”.
    He might want to check into the availability of high-capacity flamethrowers.

  126. It was a fundamentally different idea.
    In this Marty is correct. The Heritage Plan was a non-starter. The Republican plan to extend health care to those unable to afford it was, and remains, essentially nothing.
    she responds to public opinion
    This is what good pols do. After the inaugural we need to put the heat on her, esp wrt foreign policy.

  127. MArty,
    I’m with Snarki. You don’t show up at the 11th hour and say,
    “Here are some amendments that I think will help the bill. Please include them and give me soem credit, even though I’m going to vote No.”
    That’s not bargaining. Saying you’ll vote Yes if your amendment gets in is bargaining. How do you explain that? Easy.
    “The bill was going to pass on Democratic votes anyway, so my vote didn’t really matter, but at least I made things a little better.”
    If you really think your amendment was an improvement that shouldn’t be tough.

  128. Marty,
    Obama called the Affordable Care Act a bipartisan bill, citing the 161 Republican amendments included in the bill[1]. So the notion that he was trying to prevent Republicans from taking credit for making changes to the bill doesn’t fit the history.
    I don’t recall the last minute amendments you mention, but I suspect that they were all rejected due to some combination of the following:
    1) The amendments were not terribly important to their sponsors. A Republican who was serious about getting one of these amendments adopted would have offered something in return–either a promise to vote for the underlying bill or at least a promise not to use procedural mechanisms to obstruct the bill.
    2) The amendments may not have been popular with supporters of the bill. There were exactly 60 Senators willing to vote for cloture, and supporters of the bill could not afford to lose any of those 60. That meant that any one of those 60 Senators could effectively veto an amendment by threatening to switch his or her vote on the cloture motion if the amendment passed.
    It’s easy for a Senator to propose a bill or an amendment to a bill. It’s hard to actually get a bill or an amendment passed. If Republicans simply tossed out a bunch of amendments at the last minute, without making a serious attempt to get them passed, it’s hardly surprising that they got voted down. There is no reason to suppose that Reid, much less Obama, put his finger on the scale.
    [1] See, for example, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/07/this_is_what_bipartisanship_looks_like.html

  129. How do we put heat on her in foreign policy? It’s 2002 all over again. If you oppose using military force to back up our diplomacy , as Jessica Matthews approvingly put it in the latest New York Review of Books, then you are some nut who supports Assad and/or Putin. ( Of course it doesn’t help that on the fringe left and right there are people who adore Assad and Putin. )
    As in 2002, there is a bipartisan consensus among the serious people in favor of war, Obama complained about this in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg last spring. He ridiculed the Washington playbook in favor of intervention, His own record isn’t exactly a noninterventionist dream, but the people who think he’s been a patsy are going to take over in January. Unless Trump wins, in which case there is no telling what will happen.

  131. Nigel, it’s not harsh if you are playing to a constituency which thinks women belong at home taking care of the children. It’s what they consider a self-evident statement of one of the many things that is wrong with the nation today.

  132. I see Marty persists in the notion that HIS idea of a good amendment to the ACA bill was by definition a good amendment, and Obama told Reid to kill those “good” amendments just out of spite, arrogance, and contempt for good, honest Republicans sincerely trying to be helpful. I grow more convinced that water runs uphill in Marty’s universe.
    –TP

  134. “That’s not bargaining. Saying you’ll vote Yes if your amendment gets in is bargaining. How do you explain that? Easy.
    “The bill was going to pass on Democratic votes anyway, so my vote didn’t really matter, but at least I made things a little better.” ”
    No, it is not bargaining. The Republicans were trying to get some last minute input, so, yes they could have gotten a miniscule win.
    They didn’t “deserve it”, they had no bargaining leverage. They were pretty screwed actually.
    That’s the best time to help someone just a little, just enough they feel like you won’t kick them unnecessarily.
    That’s how you build coalitions out of tough rivals, you build respect if not trust.

  135. It’s 2002 all over again.
    I don’t know about that. There’s more populist isolationism on the right these day, ironically thanks to Trump (at least in part and at least in terms of making it okay to say out loud if you fashion yourself to be a conservative). It’s one of those things some on the left and some on the right might agree on. Together, they might make enough noise to push back to some degree on interventionist tendencies.

  136. It might be 1964 all over again.
    We might see a Democrat, determined to carry on the liberal social policies of her Democratic predecessor but unable to restrain her hawkish tendencies, trounce a Republican who split his party and defeated its establishment to win the nomination.
    History CAN rhyme, but I hope that it also teaches lessons on what not to do.
    –TP

  138. As in 2002, there is a bipartisan consensus among the serious people in favor of war…
    Where? Ukraine? Syria? Boots on the ground in either of those placed? That would be insane.
    No..I feel they want to adopt what they call a “more muscular” foreign policy….bluster, bluff, sanctions, limited air sorties, and drone, drone, drone.
    That, too, is pretty insane.

  139. Let’s just hope 1964 doesn’t lead into 1968…
    I did some research…nere as I can tell, it led to 1965.
    🙂

  140. The Republicans were trying to get some last minute input, so, yes they could have gotten a miniscule win.
    The GOP had plenty of time during the lengthy legislative process to provide input. The last minute amendments were simply political posturing.
    Posturing is not bargaining.

  141. I don’t know about that. There’s more populist isolationism on the right these day
    Yes, but having a Dem in the WH will significantly reduce the amount of pushback from that side of the aisle.

  142. You mean from the Dems, I assume. I guess the question is how it all nets out. I think the further-left Dems will remain assertively dovish. One can hope, right?

  143. I’m curious what word in “they weren’t bargaining ” is confusing. It’s as if the other side didn’t exist, or have to decide how to act once they won.
    Perhaps this is a more generic problem that is culturally absent. Too many dances in the end zone and “in your face” to even conceive of actual gracious winning, or seeing it as an opportunity to create goodwill.
    F’em.

  144. “Get over it”
    “Elections have consequences”
    “Go fuck yourself”
    Or, you know, “you lie” during a SOTU address.
    You’re raising the bar pretty high for Obama. Sorry to say, but I’m not sympathetic.
    Folks tend to end up lying in the beds they make.
    And for the record, I don’t see Obama as the “go f yourself” type. I think you have him confused with somebody else.

  145. Well, when one side (or at least a critical part of it) treats any hint of negotiation or compromise as utter betrayal, it becomes hard for their leaders (to the extent that they really have any) to bargain in good faith. Or, if they try to, to deliver on their side of the agreements reached. After a while, others notice.

  147. Marty,
    Maybe you could supply us with a couple of examples of these last-minute amendments. Tony is right, I think, to say that we shouldn’t just assume that they were worthwhile, and Kenneth is right that even a single Democratic defection would have doomed the bill, so the issue may not be quite as simple as you imagine.
    As to “not bargaining,” it is true that they were not bargaining with respect to votes on ACA, but rather asking for a favor. But in the context of Washington, a request for a favor is bargaining, whether you intend to return the favor now or later. What, however subtle, were the individuals involved prepared to do for Obama or Reid later?

  148. ” What, however subtle, were the individuals involved prepared to do for Obama or Reid later?”
    A chit is a chit. Defining for what depends on how many you collect.

  149. A chit is a chit, provided you can make a convincing case that you really will redeem it later. It isn’t just “for what” you will pay it off, it’s whether you will (or can, considering that you might get primaried before the subject arises) pay it off at all.
    Face it, the level of trust in the Congres sis rather lower than it was when we were growing up and studying civics in high school.

  150. So let’s just assume it’s OK for them to never make a deal…….or use actual leadership techniques to move us back toward some level of functional government.

  151. So let’s just assume it’s OK for them to never make a deal…….or use actual leadership techniques to move us back toward some level of functional government.
    Republicans aren’t interested in functional government. They’ve had Congress for six years. What reasonable legislative initiatives have they passed? As to health care, their mantra has been “repeal and replace” but they’ve come up with zero to insure the millions of people that Obamacare has covered.
    Republicans hate government and want its failure to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  152. “Republicans aren’t interested in functional government. They’ve had Congress for six years. What reasonable legislative initiatives have they passed”
    They could have passed a ton of stuff, actually they passed the repeal in the House multiple times.
    When the Democrats quit defining reasonable as only what they want I am sure they will pass lots of stuff.
    See how I can just turn it around and make it all Obamas fault. Since whatever they passed he wasn’t going to sign it anyway.
    Your fault, no your fault, no, yes, no yes.
    Bah.

  154. pull the other one, Marty.
    you can tell the GOP is really interested in governing and working with Democrats and Obama by the way they refuse to take up Garland’s nomination. and now they’ve preemptively refused to take up hypothetical-President Clinton’s nominees – cause they’re so pragmatic and not at all in the grip of the drooling nitwits that make up the GOP base.

  155. They could have passed a ton of stuff, actually they passed the repeal in the House multiple times.
    OK, let’s assume that repeal of the ACA is a reasonable thing to do. If you have argued for “repeal and replace”, and you’ve had time to pass repeal dozens of times, how have you not had time to pass a replace even once? Or even to get something as far as a draft and hearings? At some point, an outside observer could be forgiven for suspecting that “replace” is a phantom, nothing more.
    Also, given that it became clear long since that repeal wasn’t going to pass the Senate (let alone with a veto-proof majority), someone interested in governing might have moved on to actually passing other legislation. But (other than bills for critical issues like naming post offices) what have we seen? Budget and spending bills getting nowhere — so we keep going back to continuing resolutions, sometimes after government shutdowns because nothing had been passed. Anything else?
    The Supreme Cour is supposed to be severely factionalized along political lines. But it manages more instances of agreement (i.e. more than a bare majority) than this. Lots more!
    I’m willing to grant an interest in governing on the part of Congressional Republicans. But only if there is some evidence of it actually happening. I’m even willing to concede that a significant portion of the Republican caucus actually is interested in governing (at least if they can do so safely). But if you refuse to pass something without a majority of the majority party (except under extreme duress), no matter that a majority of the total House could easily be achieved…?

  156. Complaining Obama was high-handed, domineering, and spiteful upon election seems incredibly myopic for the reasons russell pointed out, though I’d add “this election earned me political capital and I intend to spend it” to that list. Obama was a humble, gracious doormat compared to his predecessor, who was facing a Congress far less hostile than the TP-adorned mess Obama was dealing with. Suggesting that Obama’s actions flew in the face of his stated intent to change the tone in the Capital by conflating “not raising the tone in Washington ‘enough'” with “not raising the tone at all” or “lowering the tone” is not a particularly convincing bit of rhetoric.

  157. If you have argued for “repeal and replace”, and you’ve had time to pass repeal dozens of times, how have you not had time to pass a replace even once? Or even to get something as far as a draft and hearings? At some point, an outside observer could be forgiven for suspecting that “replace” is a phantom, nothing more.
    I would take this further. Health insurance reform did not spring suddenly, full-grown, from Obama’s forehead in 2009. It was a much-discussed issue in the US for many many years before that. Where were the wondrous Republican plans then? It’s not as if there was never an opportunity, pre-2009, to pass a plan.
    Among other things, Republicans controlled both houses for a significant chunk of Bush’s two terms. Where’s the plan?

  158. “No sympathy: rampant, deadly consequences. Just sayin.”
    We’ve already been living with rampant, deadly consequences, for years.
    Here is why I am not sympathetic to the idea that Obama was insufficiently solicitous of (R)’s.
    I don’t believe they, as a party, have any interest in compromise or accommodation, about anything, whatsoever.
    I don’t believe them when they say otherwise. I don’t believe you when you say otherwise.
    I don’t believe it, because I don’t see it.
    When they actually show some interest in compromise and ‘finding common ground’, I’ll believe it.
    Until then, I won’t.

  160. NV,
    I disagree and it took me about a minute to find this that shows Obama in his early meetings with Republicans espousing “elections have consequences”. To pretend that the Democrats weren’t full of their success in 2008 is trying to rewrite history.

  161. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/10/289207/-
    Washington Times, defending Alito’s nomination in 2005:

    No Republican Compromise
    How many presidential and senatorial elections must Republicans win before the Democratic Party accepts the fact that elections have consequences?

    McCain, 2005:

    Among Mr. Bolton’s supporters, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was among those who urged the Senate to cast aside the Democratic objections and vote on Thursday in favor of the nomination. “Elections have consequences,” Mr. McCain said.

    Fox news, on the Roberts confirmation:

    To the Victor Goes the Court
    Elections have consequences. George W. Bush has won two elections as president of the United States and now he gets to name Supreme Court justices. And as long as those nominees are qualified and not extreme, they deserve confirmation. His first nominee, John Roberts, should be confirmed unless something unforeseen surfaces during Senate hearings…

    but of course, it’s different, somehow, when a Democrat says it after winning an election.

  163. you’re citing three words Obama said with almost context around them as evidence that he’s unwilling to deal or compromise … but the same words, in context, don’t say anything about the GOP ?

  165. I never said it was.
    hmmm…so you really aren’t making any point at all? Glad to see you clear that up.
    And of course, there is this.

  166. I disagree and it took me about a minute to find this that shows Obama in his early meetings with Republicans espousing “elections have consequences”.
    So, again… how does at most not raising the tone from its prior (ugly, vindictive spitefully partisan) state to a flawless state equate to not raising the tone at all, or lowering the tone? Or do you – in addition to your “elections have consequences” quote – have Biden telling Republican Senators on the Senate floor to go fnck themself? Or Obama announcing to the press in 2012 that his re-election afforded him with electoral capital to spend implementing his agenda without compromise? Or any other of the countless Executive incivilities under Bush that defined the tone that you can’t forgive Obama for not rising above?

  167. “At some point we will have to learn when not to kick the other side when they are down, something Obama never learned. When you win you are responsible for helping the other team feel better about their place in the game. You understand their emotional reaction, help them get a win, celebrate what you do accomplish in a way that helps them share in that success. Every President in my lifetime until Obama understood that. Our country would be better served if this one remembered it.”
    I will just go back to this. Eight years, he delivers us Trump and Clinton. The Clinton he and Michelle completely destroyed 8 years ago as the corrupt past. He hasn’t provided much leadership. YMMV

  168. Eight years, he delivers us Trump and Clinton.
    this is insane.
    your dumb-ass party gave us Trump. he’s yours. your stupid party created the myths that turned to gospel on which Trump based his sermons. the Dems had nothing to do with it or him.
    the immigration myths: your party. the bullshit about voter fraud: your party. the decades of anti-Clinton hysteria: your party. the voodoo economics and anti-intellectualism: your party. the nativism, jingoism, racism and misogyny: your party.
    all Trump did was shout what you all had been muttering under your breath for the last thirty years.
    it’s all you.

  169. Eight years, he delivers us Trump and Clinton.
    I realize that absolutely everything that goes wrong in the world is Obama’s fault. But blaming him for Trump? That is truly an amazing leap.

  170. Well, some still blame WW2 and the Holocaust on the Viennese art academy for rejecting that promising Charlie Chaplin lookalike.

  174. …Every President in my lifetime until Obama understood that…
    I don’t know who this is a quote of, but I’ve gotta say: they’re without question the most articulate and well-spoken seven-year-old I’ve ever encountered.

  175. And, obviously, I believe that people here can have a fairly open minded discussion about lots of things. But Obama isn’t one of them.

  176. “people here can have a fairly open minded discussion about lots of things.”
    To the extent that “open minded” = “ignored documented historical fact”, then no, you’re not going to get much open minded discussion, regardless of the subject.
    Does that sound harsh? It should. Anyone that tries to peddle BS as fact should get a swift kick in the ‘nads.

  177. I find it to be as weird as cat sh1t, Marty, but you’re in total wingnut territory when it comes to Obama. The only reason it’s so weird is that I don’t think you’re otherwise a wingnut.

  178. Well, maybe about Clinton, too. They seem tto go hand in hand in my experience. I can’t really think of anyone I know who (irrationally?) hates one’s guts but not the other’s.

  179. hsh,
    I hate her much more than him. I don’t think that expressing my opinion of his utter failure by any leadership metric comes close to my outright enmity toward her. She is a lying, weasel who has used her husbands and her position to use the Democratic voters to get rich and retain power at their expense. Pre Bush II no politician could have survived her outright lies, and probably couldn’t have this election except Trump.
    That’s a far cry from I think Obama failed as a leader at every point where he could have shown leadership. My God, he effectively ended Clintons career with his characterization of her as corrupt and unqualified. Then hired as Secretary of State?
    Crappy Republican politics is not an excuse to overlook the failings of Obama, much less the outright lack of conscience of Clinton.
    Tell me you’re voting for her because Trump and I understand. But being vehemently for Obama, or worse Sanders, and then pretending she fits your acceptable candidate view is no less hypocritical than the most fervent evangelical voting for Trump.

  180. If your highest priority is social justice, then I don’t see any hypocrisy at all. Beyond that, they’re not all the same, and certainly not interchangeable, but any of them is likely more appealing to a liberal/progressive than just about anyone the GOP is going to put forth these days.
    They largely line up on social issues.
    Clinton and Obama are more friendly to business interests than Sanders.
    Clinton is more hawkish than Sanders or Obama, though Obama is more hawkish than Sanders.
    Of the three, my heart would pick Sanders, my head would pick Obama, but Clinton is at least acceptable to me. I see no contradictions there. On all counts, they’re better than the vast majority of Republicans to me.

  181. Let’s face it. Even Bush II, especially Bush II sans Cheney, would be substantially better than the vast majority of Republicans currently on offer. The GOP has fallen on seriously hard times.

  183. “Crappy Republican politics is not an excuse to overlook the failings of Obama”
    the reverse is, likewise. true.
    i can think of a number of points on which i think obama has ‘failed’, i.e. not done what i would have preferred and/or simply not been successful.
    some of those are related to (R) obstruction, some not.
    all of that said, the behavior of the the (R)’s throughout his term in office has been despicable. i mean, bordering on the treasonous.
    i frankly wish obama had taken a much, much stronger line with them than he did.
    not his style, and that’s probably for the best.

  185. My God, he effectively ended Clintons career with his characterization of her as corrupt and unqualified. Then hired as Secretary of State?
    irrational contempt for the Clintons isn’t universal and not everybody thinks her career needed to be ended. the world is not actually a large Fox News comment section.

  186. In today’s’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, it is reported via AP that Russia has formally contacted three states —- Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma — and requested that Russian officers be on hand to study and monitor the Presidential election.
    The states turned them down. This is the clown show that results from Republican pig vermin on the Supreme Court gutting provisions of the Civil Rights act to permit Justice Department monitoring of the usual suspects blocking minority access to the polls.
    Further, red states that have let their Republican filth hamstring voting are experiencing long lines and waits .. A goddamned disgrace, you f$ckers.
    In Pennsylvania, where I am at the moment the local Soviet GOP has filed suit to permit them cross county poll-watching, which is expressly against the law in this state, and I hope would violate federal statutes as well.
    Meanwhile, the Clinton people are conferring to deal with the reality that Trump and other Republicans will never concede the election.
    When I return to Colorado, I’m going to vote at the polls this year instead of my customary mail in ballot, and if any self-appointed Republican filth so much as looks at me wrong in a bid to question my legitimacy, I hope they have brought their precious guns, because they will need them, after I knock them out cold.
    Of course, I’m a white male, so I will be privileged not to be F&ck d with.
    I realize that the batsh&t Betty’s believe Obama has given us all of this in the face of the ever-conciliatory, civilized Republicans, but eat me.

Comments are closed.