Trump Thread

**Husar** · 07-19-2017, 02:51

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major...hy-2014-4?IR=T

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US.

**Montmorency** · 07-19-2017, 02:56

Originally Posted by Husar

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major...hy-2014-4?IR=T

So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US.

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

**Husar** · 07-19-2017, 12:35

Originally Posted by Montmorency

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:

"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster...

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

**Montmorency** · 07-19-2017, 18:35

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.

Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:

Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster...

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

**Husar** · 07-19-2017, 20:34

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

Yes, absolutely, it might just be that your post gave me the wrong idea about what you wanted to say. To me it looked a lot like "see, bipartisanship isn't dead since politicians get a lot done in a bipartisan way". And my response was meant to be that it may be a useless or incomplete study if the things that do get done in a particular way are the "wrong" things or the things that are not of particular public interest. Because then the important big issues may not fall into the relevant category of things that can (only) get done in a bipartisan way. That's why the nature of the legislation that makes up this bipartisan majority of legislature might also be important. Perhaps the reason they don't get anything done is exactly the nature of what they're trying to get done.
I also didn't post the other study to say why parties do what they do, but to show what kind of issues do get done (tendentially of course).

Take the ACA for example: https://www.healthreformvotes.org/co.../h165-111.2010

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is. On issues like health care and aimmigration, the two parties are more or less polar opposites whereas on other issues like corporate tax cuts they may actually agree (or did agree until recently).

Therefore the issue of the bill may be just as important in whether the findings of the study apply to it or not. Of course when the majority is not very large, a few stray voters can ruin the vote for the majority like we see now, but even that may simply be due to the nature of the issue at hand. When lives are at stake, an individual congressman may be more likely to stray from the party line than when the vote is about whether the bluebird will become the next animal of the month or whether the tax rate for the coal industry will be cut from 22% to 21.5%.

So just to make things more clear, how do you interprete the study and what can the GOP learn from it or how can they use it to their advantage?

**Montmorency** · 07-19-2017, 21:47

The implication to take from the study was just that it isn't (only) Republican incompetence that explains why they couldn't figure out how to "Repeal and Replace" most of Obama's signature legislation by now.

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is.

Here is a good summary of the findings. Between 1972-2012, the study found that there were 10 landmark bills passed in both chambers of Congress that involved the majority "rolling" the minority, and that most attempts by the majority to roll the minority in passing "landmark" laws failed over this period, and that controlling both chambers over just one did not improve this much, and that there isn't much difference in roll successes or failures between landmark and non-landmark legislation, and that the vast majority of landmark laws passed in both chambers involved strong bipartisan support. The 10 exceptional bills:

Those ten successes include the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Motor Voter Law, and the omnibus crime bill passed by the Democrats in the 103rd Congress; Medicare Part D and the second round of the Bush tax cuts passed by the Republicans in the 108th Congress; the Class Action Fairness Act passed by the Republicans in the 109th Congress; the PAYGO rules passed by the Democrats in the 110th Congress; and the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and SCHIP reauthorization passed by the Democrats in the 111th Congress.

I don't know about the earlier ones, but under Obama the famous ones like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare involved the use of uncommon procedural rules and heavy campaigning and solidarity that consumed the 111th Congress/early Obama administration.

For your pleasure on "why"s, here's something on how "Koch network" funding (as opposed to mere grassroots polarization) must explain some of the shift of the Republican Party to the radical right.

**Beskar** · 07-19-2017, 22:49

The biggest problem is the name. Trumpcare is an oxymoron.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 07-20-2017, 07:18

Originally Posted by Husar

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes.

Arlen specter switched from Republican affiliation to Democrat after some 30 odd years, I think less than a year before Obama care vote.

Also senator Bunning did not show up to the vote to potentially prevent closure. Because of that the RNC cut off all funding to him and primaried him as if he caused obamacare. Funny enough, he endorsed an outsider named rand Paul who beat the establishment candidate. Rand Paul was on of the four senators who ended up blocking the GOP efforts to kill obamacare....