Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Republicans have for years said they would repeal Obamacare. Romney and Trump both said "on day one" they would repeal it. The party leadership has promoted a "stem and root" approach that involves wholesale repeal. Now that they're in power, they are confronting the political reality that doing it will be far more difficult than saying they will do it on the campaign trail. So let's look at the political reality. To start with, in the Senate, there are as many as nine Republicans who are insisting on a replacement plan before repealing Obamacare. It's unlikely that a full repeal can pass the Senate at this point unless there is a detailed plan to replace it. It only takes three GOP senators voting against the bill for it to fail. And again, nine have openly expressed skepticism at the notion of a repeal without replacement. Why would GOP senators not support a full repeal plan? Aside from the chaos it would create, there's also the political reality that their campaign rhetoric has never squared with the beliefs of the American public. First, the law itself is not as unpopular as they think and, in fact, support for Obamacare is about equally divided. http://pollingreport.com/health.htm Kaiser's most recent poll shows the split to be 43% favorable and 46% unfavorable. CBS and Pew ask if people "approve" of the law and the law is slightly more popular here. CBS shows 47% approve and 41% disapprove. Pew has it as 48% approve and 47% disapprove. All of the polls show similar splits in support/opposition to the ACA. Second, the notion of repealing the law has never been popular. Kaiser poll has 49% of people supporting repeal and 46% opposed. But, among that 49% who favor "repeal", only 20% favor repealing immediately while 28% favor a replacement. CBS polls asked a similar questions - should Congress keep the law, change the law, or repeal the law entirely. 10% said keep the law, 62% said change the law, and only 24% said repeal entirely. Pew has a similar breakdown with 39% supporting expanding the law, 15% support keeping it as-is, and 39% support repealing it. Though again, the last response also includes people who want to replace the law. Moreover, Kaiser has been asking a question about repealing, expanding, keeping as-is, and scaling it back for several years. Repeal was never popular in their poll, with support ranging from 27-35%. Expanding was almost as popular as repeal while support for keeping the ACA "as-is" ranged from 15-23%, and scaling back stayed in the low to mid-teens. Third, where Republicans have benefited is the very low support for keeping the law "as-is" or not doing anything with the law. The vast majority of people want to see changes to the law, but about the same number want to see MORE government involvement (e.g., "expanding") as want to see less ("repeal entirely"). And the overwhelming majority of people want to see some changes to the law versus no change or complete repeal without a replacement. So the political reality is the public has never supported the "repeal on day one" and "pull it out root and stem" rhetoric by Republicans over the years. Support for the law is evenly divided and there's no significant trends in either direction. Precisely because support for the law is evenly divided, the notion of entirely repealing the law has never been popular with the public. The Republicans do not even have a solid majority of the public supporting the basic ideological notion underlying their repeal rhetoric...a slight majority say that providing health care to Americans is a responsibility of the federal government. Both Gallup and Pew showed 51-52% of the public saying it's the federal government's responsibility. And Gallup has asked that question for at least the past 16 years and the numbers have bounced around considerably, but the lowest percentage saying that healthcare is a government responsibility was 42% in 2013 and that number has climbed every year since (it's not at 52%). This is the political reality that is crashing into the GOP's "repeal on day one" rhetoric and it's why they almost immediately abandoned that rhetoric after the election. It's also why their new "repeal and delay' approach is going to have a hard time passing in the Senate. They are trapped right now between needing at least a symbolic vote to "repeal" the law in the next month or so and the reality that an actual repeal (or delay) is going to be unpopular with the American public. And if they abandon the symbolic vote early and spend the first several months working on a viable replacement, they risk angering their base supporters who were promised repeal on "day one" by the GOP leaders and Trump himself.
  2. That's why I'm optimistic about the Senate committee investigation. You don't have that committee headed by a Trump transition team members and it's filled with Republicans who have no love for Trump and won't be accused of covering up for him.
  3. Another example...why wouldn't the White House disclose Jared Kushner's meeting with a Russian bank that was under sanctions since 2014? Given all of the investigations into Trump-Russia connections and the constant denials about meetings with Russians, that would be something they had to know would become public.
  4. The crazy thing is that the White House is hiding information that is commonly available and easily obtained. Like who signed in Nunes to the White House to view the information? That is part of the White House visitor's log that has been available during every presidential administration in the last 20 years or so. But the White House won't release those visitor logs to the public. It just reeks of a cover up, even if it's not.
  5. Well, my insurance hasn't changed since Obamacare was enacted even though it as going up every year before the bill went into effect. So obviously this is a great policy that halted the rise in healthcare costs. I support it.
  6. “The problem that he’s created is he’s gone off on a lark by himself, sort of an Inspector Clouseau investigation here,” Graham said. “The only way this thing can be repaired is he tells his colleagues on the House intel committee who he met with and what he saw and let them look at the same information.”
  7. Also, if credible evidence emerges of wrong-doing by Trump aides but not Trump himself, it's going to be hard for Trump to suddenly protect himself against the public backlash because of all of his lies and attacks and denials since the story emerged. Reagan flat out told a falsehood about Iran-Contra on national TV. But he had built up a huge storehouse of goodwill because of the economy and also his affable personality. So when he went back on TV and said that he thought it was true in his heart but the facts now show otherwise, people gave him the benefit of the doubt. Trump doesn't have the ability to give that kind of humble, reflective address to the country AND the public largely views him as untrustworthy and of questionable integrity (to say the least). He can't pivot like that Reagan did and he's likely to take the brunt of the public backlash if the investigations prove collusion with Russia by his aides but not him.
  8. I hate to be a broken record, but Trump's hardcore supporters are only around 20-25% of the American public. And that's a high-end estimate. A lot of people who voted for him did so very reluctantly and a good portion of them have already turned against him (look at his approval ratings). So this notion that if credible evidence emerges of serious wrong-doing regarding Russia then nothing will happen to him just isn't true. The only thing that could save him against that would be a booming economy, and I'm not even sure that would save him given the seriousness of the allegations.
  9. Interesting that Spicer just categorically denied trying to block Yates' testimony. You don't get more definitive than his statement.
  10. It's a weird combination of apparent cover up and complete incompetence. I've never seen anything like this Nunes thing. As you said, if it's not a cover up then it's so incompetent that they're making it look like one.
  11. This is looking worse and worse by the minute.
  12. After everything that's happened on the boards, do you think he's capable of feeling the shame it would require to change how he conducts himself on the boards?
  13. "All over the news" means "all over the same alt-right websites that told us that pizzagate was real and that Obama's birth certificate was fake". The problem is that some people around here can't distinguish facts from conspriacy theories from insane rightwing websites.
  14. LMAO at Republicans complaining about Democrats not voting for Trump's proposals. Hypocrites are gonna hypocrite.
  15. Yeah, their handling of this is suspicious as ****. And Nunes seems completely out of his depth in how he's handling this. Thank God for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Also, there is a legitimate case to be that Yates' discussions with WH officials fall under executive privilege. That's fair. But the way they are handling it makes it look like they are obstructing the investigation.
  16. A lot of people on these boards cheered that small group of conservatives when they were obstructing and blocking everything that Obama tried to do. Now suddenly they're the bad guys.
  17. But Spicer said it was a bad deal and Trump walked away from it.
  18. Yeah, this Nunes stuff is weird. He saw information about surveillance of Trump, so he had to rush and tell Trump before his own committee, even though he had this information for a long time and knew it before Trump's wiretap tweet, and it was legal but maybe not legal but also legal, and he could only view it at the White House the night before briefing Trump even though he knew it even before Trump's tweet, but he had to wait until the next afternoon to tell Trump about this thing he just learned that he had known for months. None of his explanations about this makes sense.
  19. Apologies if there's a formatting fail here: Since you can’t spell “schadenfreude” without “shade,” Trump-haters on social media are gloating about the latest daily polling released from Gallup. Last week, they were celebrating Trump’s reaching 37 percent, a low for his presidency that was already lower than the lowest Obama ever got. After Trump recovered somewhat, another plunge: Gallup now estimates he’s at 36 percent. When that 37 percent figure came out, we urged caution, because we are boring scolds. But also because we pointed out that these daily figures (which are actually running three-day averages) were volatile and because of whom Gallup polls. We suggested, instead, that you consider the weekly average from Gallup, which gives a better sense of the long-term trend. And that is actually the new bad news for Trump. Sure, he’s now seen a daily low that suggests he’s pretty unpopular. But last week he hit a new low as well of 39 percent — after all the volatility is smoothed out. That’s lower than Obama ever saw during any single week. What’s more, we pointed out last week that the results of approval polling varied depending on whether you were looking at likely voters. Gallup, which compiles approval ratings of all Americans, consistently had lower approval ratings than other pollsters because Trump’s base of support tends to be more likely to vote (to Hillary Clinton’s eternal consternation). The running average compiled by Huffington Post Pollster, though, shows Trump slipping lower among multiple pollsters. If we compare Gallup’s results with those from the two pollsters with whom he’s consistently performed the best — Rasmussen Reports (which polls likely voters) and Politico-Morning Consult (which uses registered voters) — even the numbers from those two pollsters have declined. His most recent rating from Rasmussen compiled by Pollster is the same as the high registered by Gallup. The trend, though, is that Gallup polls (all Americans) have had low, flat approval, and Rasmussen/Politico have seen higher-but-dropping approval. By looking at weekly numbers, we can also get a better sense of who’s souring on Trump. Below, the week-by-week approval ratings from a number of demographic groups, including Republicans and four groups that saw the biggest approval declines. Today's WorldView A drop of five percentage points among Republicans isn’t ideal, but it’s not that huge a deal. A drop of nine points among independents, though, is a loss of more than one-fifth of Trump’s support from that group over the last two months. That’s a brutal decline that may start to make Republicans nervous about how he could affect their electoral prospects over the long-term. Among those who identify as independents ideologically (as opposed to their partisan identification), the drop was 11 points, a loss of nearly a third of all support from that group since Jan. 20. Other groups saw less-steep but still-important drops, like those Republicans. White voters have dropped under 50 percent support as has support from regular churchgoers. Those without a college degree — a bastion of Trump support — have dropped from 48 percent to 42 percent. That’s the actual bad news for Trump, not a momentary fluctuation in a volatile poll number. Approval ratings don’t mean a thing except in terms of the extent to which Trump can demonstrate desire to do what he wants in the White House. Trump’s claim to a mandate was already historically weak, given the extent to which he lost the popular vote. But since then, his support has eroded, among the regular-voting constituencies at the core of Republican politics and among the independents needed to shore up any party’s electoral position. If Trump’s goal is to encourage Republicans to stand with him in the wake of the health-care disaster, it’s the weekly poll from Gallup and the trend from Rasmussen and Politico that will be most likely to discourage them from doing so.
  20. Yeesh....lowest approval ratings of any new president in modern history, and they keep getting worse.
  21. I think that Marla has criticized the optics of this, as well.
  22. This is what it means to run government like a business. Personally, I'm not a fan.
  23. “I think the president understood that where we were, that while you can get a deal at the time, that sometimes a bad deal is worse than getting a deal,” Spicer continued. “And I think he smartly recognized that what was on the table was not going to be keeping with the vision that he had, and so he decided that this was not the time and that a deal was not at hand.” One of these things is not like the other.
  24. What kind of coward constantly attacks other people's professions but won't say what he does for a living? Clown.
  25. "This wonderful bill will save Obamacare but Democrats didn't support this wonderful bill and Schumer/Pelosi are the losers for not passing this wonderful bill because it was a bad deal and I'm walking away from a bad deal because I'm a deal-maker and will walk away from this bad deal that Democrats refused to support even though it was a wonderful bill but also a bad deal that I walked away from." What a bulls*** artist... ---------- White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Monday likened President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the House Republican proposal to repeal Obamacare — which Trump had supported — to walking away from a “bad deal.” “The president also recognizes that when there’s not a deal to be made, when to walk away,” Spicer told reporters at Monday afternoon’s daily briefing, describing how the president used his business acumen to make the call on the health care fight. “It's not just about making deals. It’s knowing when to walk away from deals and knowing [that] when there’s a bad deal, that’s the only solution.”