The December 16, 2016 Thread

Josh Marshall says the DNC race cannot devolve into score settling.
It seems to me that Democrats are now involved in a pointless proxy battle between what we might call a "deep causes" explanation of the 2016 loss (strategy, ideology, candidate) and one focused on illegitimate outside interventions: Russian hacking and subversion or James Comey's week-out intervention in the presidential race. Any effort to hold these two explanations as alternatives, as though one obviates the other seems either dishonest, pointless, distracting or simply silly. […] Everybody who wants to be vindicated by Clinton's defeat won't stand for anything that doesn't place the matter 100% on her shoulders and those who supported her. Much the same applies to Clinton's historically large popular vote margin for someone who lost the presidency. There's no reason you can't trumpet the fact that Clinton was the popular choice while also noting that consequences all stand or fall by engineering wins through the math and logic of the electoral college. Which brings us to the other clarifying point. Hillary Clinton will never be the Democratic presidential nominee again. The intricacies of her emails or James Comey's decisions about the investigation into them will never be campaign issues again. Whatever you think about the Clinton Foundation will never matter again in a presidential campaign. That means that figuring out the future of the Democratic party just has nothing to do with any of those things. I'm tempted to say Russian hacking won't happen again. But frankly, I'm not so sure. They already appear to be pulling the same thing with Angela Merkel. In any case, external subversion, cybersecurity just belongs to a separate conversation and realm. The truth is it shouldn't have been close enough for these outside interventions to have allowed Trump to win. But it was. Was that because Clinton was a terrible candidate and Sanders should have been the nominee? Maybe. But I doubt it. At a minimum I don't think it is so clear as to be treated as a given. Clinton always had serious liabilities - some tied to her personally and others of historical circumstance. Sanders lacked many of Clinton's liabilities. He also had numerous other liabilities that no money or real adversary was ever put up to exploring and exploiting. But again, personalities ... I guess it's somewhat more possible that Sanders will run for President than Clinton. But I highly doubt either will.
Hear Hear! It is time to move on from this fight. I know, I am one to talk, right?
Senator Coons’ turn as the Whack-a-Mole.

Senator Coons’ turn as the Whack-a-Mole.

Senate Democrats will never vote to repeal Obamacare. But once the deed is done, a surprising number of them say they’re open to helping Republicans replace it. [...] "If there is a path toward saving the best parts of Obamacare that are actually helping deliver affordable quality health care to millions of people while addressing some of the challenges, flaws and weaknesses of Obamacare, we should work hard with Republicans on that,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “But we don’t know yet if they’re serious.”
Looks like we have to play whack a mole with Carper and Coons. As soon as we get one bipartisan Republican enabler in line, we have another pop up. Yes, let's accept Republican framing and say you are willing to work together on a replacement. Repeat after me, Chris: The replacement for Obamacare is Obamacare. If you want to improve it with a public option or a Medicare buy in or more cost controls, fine. Anything else is a non-starter, like repealing the mandate or cost control regulations on insurance companies.

The December 15, 2016 Thread

Jonathan Chait: “Donald Trump’s surprising (though not unforeseeable) election has provoked a wave of fear and anger among his opponents. But much of it has been misdirected into denial or despair rather than effective channels of political mobilization. The clearest symbol of this misplaced energy is the campaign to persuade members of the Electoral College to deny Donald Trump the presidency.” “The first thing to note about this effort is that it is utterly hopeless… Second, and more important, denying Trump the presidency through an Electoral College coup is not a procedurally legitimate response… The final problem is that the campaign to prevent Trump’s election has turned the hopeless Electoral College gambit into a substitute for political organizing.” “But there are better measures of horror at Trump and Trumpism than support for a hopeless and questionable tactic. The correct response should involve the protection and engagement of normal politics.”

The “Bernie Bros” smoking gun is no smoking gun at all

In the week after the election, I didn't listen to or read any national punditry. I still don't. As a result, I was late to the Hillary supporters "Bernie Bros" smear which identifies Sanders supporters as crypto-racists who want to throw POC, women, and gays under the bus in order to appeal to white nationalists who live in the rust belt. Entering late, I've been on my heals and frankly confused about the whole zero sum game that was underway. My fist reaction was, "C'mon guys, everyone can be a little right and a little wrong." But that didn't work. Collegiality seemed to have completely broken down. Here is my forensic take on what happened.

The December 14, 2016 Thread

Matt Yglesias:
Democrats have a deep, dark worry that they can’t express publicly. After long, frustrating years of trying and failing to get congressional Republicans to agree to do some fiscal stimulus to boost the economy, they’re worried that Trump is now going to get the cooperation they couldn’t. Enormous tax cuts will widen the deficit and stimulate the economy, and the cuts will be paired with a substantial infrastructure program that further boosts growth. “Well, sometimes you have to prime the pump,” Donald Trump told Time magazine, explaining blithely how he plans to brush aside years of conservative anti-Keynesian rhetoric. The hypocrisy here is truly stunning, though in a sense conservatives have consistently (since the Reagan Era) adhered to the view that big deficits are good if and only if there’s a Republican in the White House. But, beyond hypocrisy, the bad news for America — albeit good news for Democratic Party politicians — is that it won’t work. Which is too bad, because there is reason to believe stimulus could work and help raise wages and put a few million extra people back to work. It’s just that to make it work Trump would have to make some additional changes that there’s no indication he wants to make.

Occasional Words from the Resistance

…from the desk of R.E. Vanella. Jemand mußte Josef K. verleumdet haben, denn ohne daß er etwas Böses getan hätte, wurde er eines Morgens verhaftet. --Franz Kafka, ‘Der Proceß’ [Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K. because one morning after doing nothing wrong he was arrested. 'The Trial']
How Tom Carper’s Positions and Votes Screw People and Help Rethugs Screw People. Volume 4

How Tom Carper’s Positions and Votes Screw People and Help Rethugs Screw People. Volume 4

Let's first look at the terms of this unholiest of marriages.  In exchange for being perhaps Big Pharma's most dependable stooge (Sen. Menendez of New Jersey is also in the running), Tom Carper has received compensation from the industry commensurate with his stoogery.  Big Pharma has contributed $225,010 to Tom Carper from 2011 to the present (end of year contributions not yet reported).  Of that amount, $194,410 came from PACs as opposed to $30,600 from individual donors. 86.4% of all dollars from the industry in PAC dollars.  Open Secrets has it all right here.  If you look at Carper's 20 Top Contributors, the following all have significant involvement in Pharma:  Astra Zeneca, Ashland, Pfizer,  and DuPont. In addition, the following big donors have holdings in, and/or are lobbyists for, the pharmaceutical industry (relevant links provided):  Blackstone Group, Akin, Gump, et al, Skadden Arps, et al, and King and Spalding. So, what exactly did/does Big Pharma get from Tom Carper?  A lot.  Carper's obstructionism on behalf of the industry paid off handsomely during Obamacare negotiations. And, yes, people who rely on government insurance programs bore the cost.

The December 13, 2016 Thread

The RNC “is overseeing an expansive whip operation designed to lock down Donald Trump’s Electoral College majority and ensure that the 306 Republican electors cast their votes for the president-elect,” Politico reports. “Two RNC sources familiar with the effort said the committee — with the assistance of state Republican parties and the Trump campaign — has been in touch with most of the GOP electors multiple times, and has concluded that only one is a risk to cast a vote against Trump on Dec. 19, when the Electoral College meets.” Which is why I have been dashing any liberal or progressive dreams that somehow the GOP electors will vote their conscience. These people are usually GOP partisans and party regulars. So they don't have one.