Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Simple control the narrative with a public tit for tat or at least get the fucker to shut the fuck up and stop showing up on every TV show because Biden has lost optics on this. Even if these bills pass the steam therefore any public benefit from them have been stripped away thanks to this shit show. You want them to do it behind the scene I am all for that but that goes for all parties involved or none at all.

Control the narrative? How? The narrative has been out there for a long time, and there's no singular narrative. This isn't Twitter releasing their internal political bias report last week because they wanted to set the narrative for it by being the ones to break and frame that information, we're well past the point where anyone can control the narrative with that bill.

Public tit for tat? Cool, so we've got Biden and Manchin each saying the other is a poopy head. Awesome. Great job. Such unity. Much winning. And it stands to harm the chances the two can actually come to an agreement behind the scenes, like Biden did in getting Manchin on board with the ARA last year.

[Draco-Onis]

Control the narrative? How? The narrative has been out there for a long time, and there's no singular narrative. This isn't Twitter releasing their internal political bias report last week because they wanted to set the narrative for it by being the ones to break and frame that information, we're well past the point where anyone can control the narrative with that bill.

Public tit for tat? Cool, so we've got Biden and Manchin each saying the other is a poopy head. Awesome. Great job. Such unity. Much winning. And it stands to harm the chances the two can actually come to an agreement behind the scenes, like Biden did in getting Manchin on board with the ARA last year.

I know we are well past that Manchin has been out of control for months showing up on every Sunday show destroying any public momentum the bill had. Even if the bill passes it will be a hollow victory and let's look at the big picture here nothing Biden has done so far is transformational. Under normal times all these bills would be bipartisan bills it just shows how much the politics of the government have shifted right with little to no counter shift when democrats take power.

[Edge-]

Even if the bill passes it will be a hollow victory and let's look at the big picture here nothing Biden has done so far is transformational.

Anyone expecting "transformational" was grossly ignorant (in the descriptive sense, not as an insult) of the current political realities then. It was never going to be.

Under normal times all these bills would be bipartisan bills it just shows how much the politics of the government have shifted right with little to no counter shift when democrats take power.

These bills wouldn't have been bipartisan for at least the last 3 decades, dude. Especially with the size we're talking about. Even voting rights wouldn't have been bipartisan in the 90's for fucks sake.

I get that you're frustrated with the lack of movement and shit getting done. I'm frustrated with it too, especially because some of the bills like the voting rights bill is designed to address some of the sources of this gridlock.

But the whole, "It's all the fault of POTUS!" or "It's all because of POTUS!" thinking is wrongheaded and not how our government works, even when they're in the same political party that controls Congress.

It's a bad habit media have gotten into, largely because it helps simplify the complex operations of government into something everyone can easily understand, combined with a few decades of both Republicans overtly happy to make POTUS the center of all attention (for good or bad) and Congress writ-large ceding some of their authorities to the executive branch.

[Draco-Onis]

Anyone expecting "transformational" was grossly ignorant (in the descriptive sense, not as an insult) of the current political realities then. It was never going to be.

But that's what Biden has been pitching even the announcement on the framework he compared it to FDR's new deal dollars. Biden has been overpromising and underdelivering.

These bills wouldn't have been bipartisan for at least the last 3 decades, dude. Especially with the size we're talking about. Even voting rights wouldn't have been bipartisan in the 90's for fucks sake.

I get that you're frustrated with the lack of movement and shit getting done. I'm frustrated with it too, especially because some of the bills like the voting rights bill is designed to address some of the sources of this gridlock.

But the whole, "It's all the fault of POTUS!" or "It's all because of POTUS!" thinking is wrongheaded and not how our government works, even when they're in the same political party that controls Congress.

It's a bad habit media have gotten into, largely because it helps simplify the complex operations of government into something everyone can easily understand, combined with a few decades of both Republicans overtly happy to make POTUS the center of all attention (for good or bad) and Congress writ-large ceding some of their authorities to the executive branch.

I agree somewhat with what you are saying but everything being centered around the POTUS is the reality and as such Biden should have have a tighter grip on unity and message. The facts are American politics is no longer about pragmatism and back room deals, Manchin understands it that's why he is whoring himself to every news show. However in the process he is publicly destroying Biden's image and numbers, this stunt he pulled today should get him reamed over the coals but we both know Biden won't do that adding to the growing frustration.

[Edge-]

But that's what Biden has been pitching even the announcement on the framework he compared it to FDR's new deal dollars. Biden has been overpromising and underdelivering.

So...is he supposed to play things up publicly to try to build support or not? Should he only do it if it will succeed? How will he know when it will succeed vs. not?

I agree somewhat with what you are saying but everything being centered around the POTUS is the reality and as such Biden should have have a tighter grip on unity and message.

It's literally not. It's the perception of reality, as I stated. Yes, Executive branch has more power now than originally designed/it used to, but it's still severely limited in many regards even when the POTUS isn't constantly trying to break the rules and getting slapped down.

The facts are American politics is no longer about pragmatism and back room deals

Amusingly, this is actually pretty great evidence at how successful the dog and pony show has been in convincing people that this is how shit actually gets done.

It doesn't, it literally doesn't, and that's why and how we end up with, for example, a historically unpopular tax cut that's written behind closed doors and passed without anyone fully reading it and with hand-written notes in multiple different styles scribbled into the margins.

Because for all the dog and pony shows that can sometimes affect pressure on some members, the actual work doesn't get done in broad daylight. Never has, never really will. Even when we're talking about much more open bills that were publicly discussed and debated like the ACA.

Manchin understands it that's why he is whoring himself to every news show.

No, he understands its good for his personal career because, as you are showing, this is how voters believe things are done.

However in the process he is publicly destroying Biden's image and numbers, this stunt he pulled today should get him reamed over the coals but we both know Biden won't do that adding to the growing frustration.

This presumes that elected officials are all completely beholden to and "owned" by their party, which while we can largely say that's true for Republicans it has never really been true for Democrats. Yes there's unity on some key issues to get them through (ACA and ARA are good examples), but Democrats have never had the kind of unity that Republicans have had, outside of the spasms between the establishment and extreme wings with the rise of the tea party.

What are Democrats gonna do to him? Cut him off? Disinvite him to their pizza party? How do they stand to gain from that? I'm not arguing they should just give in to every demand he makes, mind you, but the unfortunate reality is that he's looking out for himself and if Democrats want to keep him in their corner right now they've gotta negotiate and give a little, or a lot, to get one of their bigger pieces of legislation done.

Even if it's a far cry from what's needed and what was originally sold, a $1.75T bill is still one of the bigger investments that the US has made in a long, long time, delivers after 4 years of "infrastructure week" blue balls, and contains a LOT of good policies in it. Sure they're not as ambitious as they need to be, or once were, but it's again, still a step in the right direction.

That's why folks like Sanders still sell this shit even if it falls far short of what he actually wants. Because getting a quarter way there is still a better option than moving nowhere at all. For all his idealism and inability to get major legislation he wants passed, he's been effective at taking steps towards his ultimate goals. Because the closer you are to them to begin with, the easier it is to eventually reach them.

[Kaleredar]

But that's what Biden has been pitching even the announcement on the framework he compared it to FDR's new deal dollars. Biden has been overpromising and underdelivering.



I agree somewhat with what you are saying but everything being centered around the POTUS is the reality and as such Biden should have have a tighter grip on unity and message. The facts are American politics is no longer about pragmatism and back room deals, Manchin understands it that's why he is whoring himself to every news show. However in the process he is publicly destroying Biden's image and numbers, this stunt he pulled today should get him reamed over the coals but we both know Biden won't do that adding to the growing frustration.

What does "reamed over the coals" mean to you? Biden handing out a very strongly worded message about how manchin and Sinema wont play along? He has no ability to act against them or coerce them into doing what he or the democrats want. And furthermore, for Manchin and Sinema, such a... whatever you think is going to happen to them... it does exactly two things and two things only:

1) that's exactly what they want; they want to be seen as "democrat neutrals" to maintain their partisan-contested seats.

2) Doesn't actually get the democrats anything if they still refuse

Your whole schitck seems to be berating the democrats for "not wanting it enough," as if there were some magic word they could say or thing they could do to make Manchin and Sinema or the republicans just do what they want, but that they're just sitting on their hands instead of doing whatever that vague thing is.

If the numbers aren't there, the numbers aren't there. It would be great if Manchin and Sinema weren't in the equation. But they are.

[Draco-Onis]

So...is he supposed to play things up publicly to try to build support or not? Should he only do it if it will succeed? How will he know when it will succeed vs. not?

But this is the current gutted bill he is making the comparison to FDR, there's nothing transformative about it we both agreed. Why is he pitching a dead horse as a live one? The most popular parts of the bill have been gutted.

It's literally not. It's the perception of reality, as I stated. Yes, Executive branch has more power now than originally designed/it used to, but it's still severely limited in many regards even when the POTUS isn't constantly trying to break the rules and getting slapped down.

Ever heard the expression perception becomes reality?

Amusingly, this is actually pretty great evidence at how successful the dog and pony show has been in convincing people that this is how shit actually gets done.

But nothing has gotten done this joke of a bill even if it passes is not going to satisfy anyone, Manchin has smeared so much shit over it that campaigning on it won't yield any bonuses.

[Edge-]

But this is the current gutted bill he is making the comparison to FDR, there's nothing transformative about it we both agreed. Why is he pitching a dead horse as a live one? The most popular parts of the bill have been gutted.

...and? This was always expected that the bill would be negotiated down even amongst Democrats. It's no less disappointing, but it's another of the, "If you thought otherwise you were ignorant" (in the descriptive, not the insulting).

Why pitching "a dead horse"? Because for better or worse, this is the best bill we're likely gonna get and it's still lightyears better than $0, which is the alternative.

Ever heard the expression perception becomes reality?

Yes. Are you going somewhere with this? Folksy expressions can have meaning but not be universally applicable. This is an instance where it's not universally applicable. Just because everyone believes that bills are negotiated in public doesn't mean they are. Their belief does not alter reality, just their perception of it.

But nothing has gotten done this joke of a bill even if it passes is not going to satisfy anyone

Really? Nobody? I mean, sure most of us agree it's not enough but even as-is it's still a win and a good step in the right direction. That's something you can build on, and can help raise the "floor" on an issue much like the ACA, which I keep comparing this to, raised the "floor" on health insurance. Things that were once standard like denial for pre-existing coverage, ridiculously low lifetime maximums, being dropped the second you actually get sick etc. are now no longer viewed as acceptable on the national level. Polling bears this out, and even if Republicans almost sank the ACA with their bullshit at the end of the day they didn't, and they'd have had a lot of very unhappy voters who would be pissed to find out the protections they'd come to enjoy were gone.

Manchin has smeared so much shit over it that campaigning on it won't yield any bonuses.

Ok, then let Manchin dictate your reality to you. All your posts seem keen to have someone tell you what reality is rather than you simply accepting information, processing it, and determining reality for yourself.

He can shit on the bill all he wants. But if he votes for it at the end of the day and it passes, who the fuck cares what he said about it?

[Draco-Onis]

Yes. Are you going somewhere with this? Folksy expressions can have meaning but not be universally applicable. This is an instance where it's not universally applicable. Just because everyone believes that bills are negotiated in public doesn't mean they are. Their belief does not alter reality, just their perception of it.

But perception is what you use to sell the bill to voters and secure votes from it, that's why these optics matter.

Really? Nobody? I mean, sure most of us agree it's not enough but even as-is it's still a win and a good step in the right direction. That's something you can build on, and can help raise the "floor" on an issue much like the ACA, which I keep comparing this to, raised the "floor" on health insurance. Things that were once standard like denial for pre-existing coverage, ridiculously low lifetime maximums, being dropped the second you actually get sick etc. are now no longer viewed as acceptable on the national level. Polling bears this out, and even if Republicans almost sank the ACA with their bullshit at the end of the day they didn't, and they'd have had a lot of very unhappy voters who would be pissed to find out the protections they'd come to enjoy were gone.

Oh yes all the bridges we keep building to nowhere, the ACA will keep getting gutted and some basic things will remain. This bill will be yet another frame work pingin pong back forth that will sit on a empty lot just like the ACA.

Ok, then let Manchin dictate your reality to you. All your posts seem keen to have someone tell you what reality is rather than you simply accepting information, processing it, and determining reality for yourself.

He can shit on the bill all he wants. But if he votes for it at the end of the day and it passes, who the fuck cares what he said about it?

Look at how the bill is polling he did dictate the narrative of the bill, who the fuck cares about political capital? with that attitude I am sure we will keep winning elections /s

[Edge-]

But perception is what you use to sell the bill to voters and secure votes from it, that's why these optics matter.

The contents of the bill are what you sell, not the sausage making of it. You're either talking about proving they're doing something - the stage-play sausage making - or selling the bill - telling people what's in it and how it will benefit them. Two different things, but you're speaking as if they're interchangeable.

Oh yes all the bridges we keep building to nowhere the ACA will keep getting gutted and some basic things will remain.

To a lot of benefits that set the new floor like children being covered until 26?

I'd say that's a bridge to somewhere, even if it's not immediately leading to its destination which is what you seem to want. Change in this country, for better or worse (IMO worse) is slow. We're still largely a very conservative country, even amongst the liberals.

It's now there as the new starting point for the next time there's a chance to make forward progress on health insurance/coverage in the country.

This bill will be yet another frame work pingin pong back forth that will sit on a empty lot just like the ACA.

Again, with the alternative of...?

Nothing?

How is "Nothing" better than the current bill?

Look at how the bill is polling he did dictate the narrative of the bill

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog...emains-popular
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...xation-on-cost

No data from the past week or so, but the bill largely remains popular in the abstract in its initial form. It's more nuanced obviously, and polling bears out that there are concerns about the cost (because of course there are), so we'll have to wait for more polling on the latest versions. But as-is, Manchin isn't "setting that narrative" about cost, that's a concern about every bill because voters don't understand how government finance work.

They also conveniently forget the "You need to invest money to make money." nonsense they spout when talking about private business.

[Draco-Onis]

The contents of the bill are what you sell, not the sausage making of it. You're either talking about proving they're doing something - the stage-play sausage making - or selling the bill - telling people what's in it and how it will benefit them. Two different things, but you're speaking as if they're interchangeable.

You mean like the ACA? that worked out so well for democrats in 2010 it's the perfect example of letting someone else shape the narrative on a bill and failing to defend it. The ACA barely survived later on due to this democrats have a message problem they always have or perhaps after all these years of making the same mistakes it's not incompetence it's purposeful.

Again, with the alternative of...?

Nothing?

How is "Nothing" better than the current bill?

If we had a time machine I would have Biden only pitched the bill after he had worked it out, if he wanted to sell this bill as transformative then he should have been more combative publicly and or privately for the aspects of it that are popular.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog...emains-popular
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...xation-on-cost

No data from the past week or so, but the bill largely remains popular in the abstract in its initial form. It's more nuanced obviously, and polling bears out that there are concerns about the cost (because of course there are), so we'll have to wait for more polling on the latest versions. But as-is, Manchin isn't "setting that narrative" about cost, that's a concern about every bill because voters don't understand how government finance work.

They also conveniently forget the "You need to invest money to make money." nonsense they spout when talking about private business.

But most of the popular parts of the package have been gutted that's my point on him setting the narrative because he has had such an outsize influence in shaping the bill. The narrative has become you couldn't have this because people will be way too lazy.

[Edge-]

You mean like the ACA? that worked out so well for democrats in 2010 it's the perfect example of letting someone else shape the narrative on a bill and failing to defend it. The ACA barely survived later on due to this democrats have a message problem they always have or perhaps after all these years of making the same mistakes it's not incompetence it's purposeful.

First off, there's no polling I've seen attributing the ACA as the main, or even a significant, reason why Democrats got creamed in 2010.

Secondly like...yeah, that's how progress works in the US. Democrats were riding a wave of sympathy following Kenny's assassination that helped them push the Civil Rights Act through that year and make some gains. Know what happened in 1966? They lost all those seats and then some, but still held Congress due to their huge majority at the time.

Because that's, depressingly, how this country works. Two steps forward, giant temper tantrum and one step back.

But most of the popular parts of the package have been gutted that's my point on him setting the narrative because he has had such an outsize influence in shaping the bill. The narrative has become you couldn't have this because people will be way too lazy.

Ok but how is he setting a narrative if we don't even have a narrative, then? Where do I find this narrative?

[omerome]

I still can't believe that one man from WV is literally holding up the opportunity for this country to do something transformative. All because he has personal conflicts of interest. He's so awful and frankly, a bit evil.

[Draco-Onis]

First off, there's no polling I've seen attributing the ACA as the main, or even a significant, reason why Democrats got creamed in 2010.

The death panels, tea party protests, democrats hiding from the topic, the ACA is prime example of democrats losing the narrative and failing on message.

Ok but how is he setting a narrative if we don't even have a narrative, then? Where do I find this narrative?

First thing would be party discipline and messaging then shaping the bill by making small incremental pitches, the bar Biden has set is FDR. You can't conjure FDR and land on "just a start".

[Edge-]

The death panels, tea party protests, democrats hiding from the topic, the ACA is prime example of democrats losing the narrative and failing on message.

Ok, so show me that it impacted the election results in a significant way.

First thing would be party discipline and messaging then shaping the bill by making small incremental pitches, the bar Biden has set is FDR. You can't conjure FDR and land on "just a start".

I'm not seeing a link to where I can find this narrative, because it sounds more like you're just telling us your personal view of this.

[Yuujin]

The death panels, tea party protests, democrats hiding from the topic, the ACA is prime example of democrats losing the narrative and failing on message.



First thing would be party discipline and messaging then shaping the bill by making small incremental pitches, the bar Biden has set is FDR. You can't conjure FDR and land on "just a start".

I think Michelle Obama summed up the problem with the Democrats pretty well. When they go low, we go high.

That's really been working out.

[Draco-Onis]

Ok, so show me that it impacted the election results in a significant way.

The 2010 election was messaged around the ACA, historically democrats were poised to lose seats but they lost more as a result. The polling around the ACA at that time was very negative so it did drag poll numbers.

I'm not seeing a link to where I can find this narrative, because it sounds more like you're just telling us your personal view of this.

Isn't that what we are all doing giving our personal views? party discipline and messaging when pitching a bill is politics 101. The reason we have this shit show is because there is no unity, discipline or unified party messaging on this bill.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Michelle Obama summed up the problem with the Democrats pretty well. When they go low, we go high.

That's really been working out.

Yeah too many people forget America is a low brow country.

[omerome]

Look, the deficit is ridiculous, but the inconsistency of that argument is simply bullshit. I don't care about the deficit if what we're trying to do with our spending is an investment - AND is paid for. There are other ways to reduce spending and I'm looking at you, 768B defense bill. WTF?!

So yeah, we should also balance the budget, but at what cost? I guess we should let millions of people starve to death, right? Or let them die because they can't afford prescription drugs or medical bills? I guess we should just do nothing to address climate change and in twenty years when it's too late, watch the planet turn into a dump with extreme weather, huh. People like to say that we're just running up the "credit card" and forcing our grandkids to pay for it. Well, doing nothing right now is giving them a credit card with nothing worth paying for. At least if the deficit does increase with the bill, the programs it includes WILL help people.

This bill is literally the difference between life and death for millions of people and we're unable to get it done literally because some folks in congress treat numbers with a higher value than people.

This country just feels like we have a state-of-the-art security system in the worst shack/rundown building in the worst area of the block. What exactly are we protecting when the area around it looks like trash?

[Dacia Ultan]

This country just feels like we have a state-of-the-art security system in the worst shack/rundown building in the worst area of the block. What exactly are we protecting when the area around it looks like trash?

That analogy is perfect, really. It's like the right would rather we have nothing to defend than lose out on the ability to brag about our defenses. (And in the meanwhile: our defense spending may be off the rails, but our veterans still get a raw deal.)

[Yuujin]

Look, the deficit is ridiculous, but the inconsistency of that argument is simply bullshit. I don't care about the deficit if what we're trying to do with our spending is an investment - AND is paid for. There are other ways to reduce spending and I'm looking at you, 768B defense bill. WTF?!

So yeah, we should also balance the budget, but at what cost? I guess we should let millions of people starve to death, right? Or let them die because they can't afford prescription drugs or medical bills? I guess we should just do nothing to address climate change and in twenty years when it's too late, watch the planet turn into a dump with extreme weather, huh. People like to say that we're just running up the "credit card" and forcing our grandkids to pay for it. Well, doing nothing right now is giving them a credit card with nothing worth paying for. At least if the deficit does increase with the bill, the programs it includes WILL help people.

This bill is literally the difference between life and death for millions of people and we're unable to get it done literally because some folks in congress treat numbers with a higher value than people.

This country just feels like we have a state-of-the-art security system in the worst shack/rundown building in the worst area of the block. What exactly are we protecting when the area around it looks like trash?

Sounds like socialism. I think I'd rather just STARVE.
- 30% of the country that somehow has 50+% representation in our government?