U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

 

[KenjiOgiwara]

His recent journalist spat with CBS. Amazing

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Colour me astonished

:). Do you disagree - I was thinking of the democrats and two sub-optimal candidates, the lack of a majority in one of the houses, meaning they're not able to do an awful amount to mitigate the damage of Trump, and in the UK Labour has the fewest seats since the last world war, or whenever and parliament has run away. I mean is there a strong opposition in either country in terms of the Virus pandemic response?

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Thought Sean Paul had undergone a helluva makeover then for a second......

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

:). Do you disagree - I was thinking of the democrats and two sub-optimal candidates, the lack of a majority in one of the houses, meaning they're not able to do an awful amount to mitigate the damage of Trump, and in the UK Labour has the fewest seats since the last world war, or whenever and parliament has run away. I mean is there a strong opposition in either country in terms of the Virus pandemic response?

In the UK, there is a majority government, which means that 'the opposition' (and I include all opposing parties here, with an exception for the SNP, not just Labour) have no power to direct the response in any way. Effective opposition is limited to pointing out the gaps in government provision (on PPE, on social distancing measures, on financial support) which I thought all opposition parties were doing competently enough. I'm less impressed by Starmer's approach so far, but perhaps he's getting into the role. Whatever, it makes little difference, because a government with a majority in a Westminster system is not directed by the opposition.

It's a bit more complicated in America, where the Democrats do hold power in one house of Congress, and where Pelosi's response has been frankly very poor, including failing to do anything to support a 'virtual House' and letting everyone return to their districts rather than stay legislating in Washington. However, while both Biden and Sanders had big flaws as candidates, either would have been an enormous improvement on Trump, and both have released competent coronavirus plans. Again, though, you don't get to govern unless you're in government, which is the bigger picture here. One area on which you and I genuinely disagree, I think, and in which you are often mistaken, is that you assume a degree of power and control for opposition politicians which they simply don't possess.

[Wainy316]

3 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Is being a decent human being now a minority in the world?  

No but the ability to think reasonably and critically is.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the UK, there is a majority government, which means that 'the opposition' (and I include all opposing parties here, with an exception for the SNP, not just Labour) have no power to direct the response in any way. Effective opposition is limited to pointing out the gaps in government provision (on PPE, on social distancing measures, on financial support) which I thought all opposition parties were doing competently enough. I'm less impressed by Starmer's approach so far, but perhaps he's getting into the role. Whatever, it makes little difference, because a government with a majority in a Westminster system is not directed by the opposition.

It's a bit more complicated in America, where the Democrats do hold power in one house of Congress, and where Pelosi's response has been frankly very poor, including failing to do anything to support a 'virtual House' and letting everyone return to their districts rather than stay legislating in Washington. However, while both Biden and Sanders had big flaws as candidates, either would have been an enormous improvement on Trump, and both have released competent coronavirus plans. Again, though, you don't get to govern unless you're in government, which is the bigger picture here. One area on which you and I genuinely disagree, I think, and in which you are often mistaken, is that you assume a degree of power and control for opposition politicians which they simply don't possess.

Not just poor. Pelosi refused to have the politicians hang their hat on the $2T bailout bill via a recorded vote. In the House, which she controls. In addition, the "strong protections" for "the people" that she negotiated, were erased by Trump prior to signing. Such bad luck, those pesky corporations etc., winning again. 

No different to passing 2 massive spending bills though or a tax amnesty.

... what they do, not what they say.

Edited April 15, 2020 by villakram

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

One area on which you and I genuinely disagree, I think, and in which you are often mistaken, is that you assume a degree of power and control for opposition politicians which they simply don't possess.

I'd say a strong opposition - by which I mean a well led, united and significant in numbers (i.e. requiring only a few "rebels" from Gov't) clearly has a degree of influence (call it power and control if you want, but I don't view it as strongly as you seem to think I do). Whether that be one party or others acting in consort. We say with Brexity issues that a government faced with opposition parties, often marshalled by Hillary Benn or Yvette Cooper or even their own rebels was able to wreak all kinds of havoc for Theresa May. We have seen in Obama's second term that the Repub's with control of both houses were able to essentially stop much of what Obama wanted to do, and if not stop it, water it down massively. I would claim both those as instances of "strong" opposition that wielded significant impact/ power to stop X and Y. I'm not talking about whether I agree personally with the Repub's or Labour or SNP or whoever, just that they had at times an element of control/restraint (power of) over the respective Gov't.

Further there's a softer power - the ability to influence the media and public narrative. To put out a clear alternative path, to demand answers to the questions people want answering, and get the media onside with those questions. We'll see whether Starmer is able to wield the (limited) power he has well or not. Ditto Biden.

Whilst Trump is so hapless and hostile, the US has a better opportunity in some respects than is the case in the US, because the media are largely treating him as the infant he behaves like, already. Here, it's harder right now, sure. because unlike the US, the opposition aren't ahead in the polls, the Gov't is a new one, not a Present. running out of time till the next election. So the oppo here is weaker than in the US. But both are hampered in terms of being able to affect legislation due to lack of numbers - they're, therefore, I'd say currently "weak" - having limited strength, compared to previous situations in time. I'm not trying to make party political points, more structural ones.

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I'd say a strong opposition - by which I mean a well led, united and significant in numbers (i.e. requiring only a few "rebels" from Gov't) clearly has a degree of influence (call it power and control if you want, but I don't view it as strongly as you seem to think I do). Whether that be one party or others acting in consort. We say with Brexity issues that a government faced with opposition parties, often marshalled by Hillary Benn or Yvette Cooper or even their own rebels was able to wreak all kinds of havoc for Theresa May. We have seen in Obama's second term that the Repub's with control of both houses were able to essentially stop much of what Obama wanted to do, and if not stop it, water it down massively. I would claim both those as instances of "strong" opposition that wielded significant impact/ power to stop X and Y. I'm not talking about whether I agree personally with the Repub's or Labour or SNP or whoever, just that they had at times an element of control/restraint (power of) over the respective Gov't.

Further there's a softer power - the ability to influence the media and public narrative. To put out a clear alternative path, to demand answers to the questions people want answering, and get the media onside with those questions. We'll see whether Starmer is able to wield the (limited) power he has well or not. Ditto Biden.

Whilst Trump is so hapless and hostile, the US has a better opportunity in some respects than is the case in the US, because the media are largely treating him as the infant he behaves like, already. Here, it's harder right now, sure. because unlike the US, the opposition aren't ahead in the polls, the Gov't is a new one, not a Present. running out of time till the next election. So the oppo here is weaker than in the US. But both are hampered in terms of being able to affect legislation due to lack of numbers - they're, therefore, I'd say currently "weak" - having limited strength, compared to previous situations in time. I'm not trying to make party political points, more structural ones.

See, I don't disagree with any of that (well, apart from the idea that opposition principally came from Labour backbenchers, but let's not go back over that old ground), and in fact I think it's well-written and well-argued, but I don't think it answers the point of where we came into this conversation. @DCJonah said he couldn't understand why Trump or Johnson have had approval rating bumps for their governments, and you responded with 'weak opposition is the key to both'. But it's not even close to obvious that that's right. Are we really saying that if Labour had 70 more MP's, or the Democrats had two more senators, that Trump or Johnson wouldn't have had an approval ratings bump? Because if we look around the world, we can see that all kinds of leaders, in all kinds of all countries, with differing levels of opposition closeness in legislatures, have also received approval bumps (and in fact, Trump has received one of the smallest in any democracy). And I get that you could say, well, if there were more Democrat senators, Trump wouldn't be governing in the same way, but he just would, wouldn't he? Trump does what Trump wants to within the limits of his powers, and he hasn't started governing differently since Democrats took control of the House in 2018.

The simpler answer to DCJ's question is 'because all governments of all different kinds are benefitting from a well-known public opinion effect called the 'rally-round-the-flag' effect, which is often not very long-lasting', but that doesn't allow much room for dunking on the Labour party, because it has almost nothing to do with them.

****

EDIT: Thinking this through further, surely one of the lessons of the 2017-2019 Parliament is that a 'strong opposition' *in the legislature* (remember when Johnson lost his first seven votes in a row or whatever it was?) is actually counterproductive unless it carries with it a critical mass of public opinion, because otherwise it will be seen (and portrayed) as blocking and frustrating what the people want.

Edited April 16, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[sne]

18 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Steven Hyde from That 70's Show looks tired.

[KenjiOgiwara]

18 minutes ago, sne said:

Steven Hyde from That 70's Show looks tired.

That's because you're mistaking him for Vincent Cassel. He's undercover. Jaques Mesrine pt. 3. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by KenjiOgiwara

[blandy]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Are we really saying that if Labour had 70 more MP's, or the Democrats had two more senators, that Trump or Johnson wouldn't have had an approval ratings bump?

No. I’m not saying that. I took DCJonah’s comment “I really struggle with his success and the way so many people think our government are handling the corona pandemic well” perhaps differently to you. I took it not as “why did leaders get a temporary boost in ratings” but as “why haven’t more people in America cottoned on to his failings, why is he still popular and why do people perceive our government to be doing a good job on the virus“ and I see weak opposition as a key factor.  I’m not dunking on the Labour Party.  They are weak because it’s a fact they have a long time low of MPs and the tories have 80+ majority.  That’s just how it is, where were at. I’m not making a party political point here.

Johnson losing his first 7 votes led to the government being prevented from doing what it wanted on the single issue of Brexit. The same with Theresa May, who it broke. This was cheered/jeered down remain/leave lines. I agree leaders get a popularity boost, for a time, in instances of national emergency. It rarely lasts.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

No. I’m not saying that. I took DCJonah’s comment “I really struggle with his success and the way so many people think our government are handling the corona pandemic well” perhaps differently to you. I took it not as “why did leaders get a temporary boost in ratings” but as “why haven’t more people in America cottoned on to his failings, why is he still popular and why do people perceive our government to be doing a good job on the virus“ and I see weak opposition as a key factor.  I’m not dunking on the Labour Party.  They are weak because it’s a fact they have a long time low of MPs and the tories have 80+ majority.  That’s just how it is, where were at. I’m not making a party political point here.

Johnson losing his first 7 votes led to the government being prevented from doing what it wanted on the single issue of Brexit. The same with Theresa May, who it broke. This was cheered/jeered down remain/leave lines. I agree leaders get a popularity boost, for a time, in instances of national emergency. It rarely lasts.

 

 

Yes, exactly, leaders get a popularity boost during national crises. We can ask, to use your formulation 'why haven't more people in ______ cottoned on to ______'s failings, why is he/she still popular and why do people perceive the _____ government to be doing a good job on the virus' for nearly every country in the world, and the answer is not to do with counting opposition politicians, but to do with leaders getting a popularity boost during national crises.

As you yourself said, these popularity boosts rarely last (Trump's already seems to be unwinding). We can just park this question and come back to it in 6 months. If the Tories are still at 55% in the opinion polls, it will be because they're doing an *incredible* job. If not, then their numbers will be back in a normal range, and the question will be largely redundant.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If not, then their numbers will be back in a normal range, and the question will be largely redundant.

I wonder, though?  With this pandemic, there’s a strong chance that the opposite effect will happen, like first the “national crisis” boost, but then the slump as people come to see how badly things have been handled?  There will be a very strong chance, I’d think that the key message re Trump will be particularly and justifiably brutal, focusing on his massive failure leading to so many deaths, so much cost, so much harm. I can’t see his bounce lasting to their election in November. 

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wonder, though?  With this pandemic, there’s a strong chance that the opposite effect will happen, like first the “national crisis” boost, but then the slump as people come to see how badly things have been handled?  There will be a very strong chance, I’d think that the key message re Trump will be particularly and justifiably brutal, focusing on his massive failure leading to so many deaths, so much cost, so much harm. I can’t see his bounce lasting to their election in November. 

Yes, absolutely - there's a lot of downside risk for incumbents. Trump received one of the smallest approval bumps - much smaller than the average state governor - and there is evidence of that bump unwinding already. His popularity could diminish further. There's a floor on how much it can decline - in this time of high partisanship, probably somewhere 85 and 90% of people are already locked in to voting one way or the other, but if Trump ends up getting, say, 42% in November, that would be a disastrous performance with huge down-ballot implications for other Republican politicians.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, absolutely - there's a lot of downside risk for incumbents. Trump received one of the smallest approval bumps - much smaller than the average state governor - and there is evidence of that bump unwinding already. His popularity could diminish further. There's a floor on how much it can decline - in this time of high partisanship, probably somewhere 85 and 90% of people are already locked in to voting one way or the other, but if Trump ends up getting, say, 42% in November, that would be a disastrous performance with huge down-ballot implications for other Republican politicians.

42% could well be enough to win the presidential election. Base case had republicans on the defensive in congress regardless of what occurs. Now, hmmm.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

42% could well be enough to win the presidential election. Base case had republicans on the defensive in congress regardless of what occurs. Now, hmmm.

On the former, I can't see it personally - it would require third-party candidates to be getting 15%+ cumulatively, which seems very unlikely. Of course there could be a black swan candidate I'm not imagining, but it would be a real surprise. On the latter, I agree that was the base case. It's still my prior until I see evidence that its wrong, and while it's not a great measure the generic congressional ballot still has a generic Democrat seven points ahead of a generic Republican, which is essentially unmoved from the start of the crisis.

[villakram]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the former, I can't see it personally - it would require third-party candidates to be getting 15%+ cumulatively, which seems very unlikely. Of course there could be a black swan candidate I'm not imagining, but it would be a real surprise. On the latter, I agree that was the base case. It's still my prior until I see evidence that its wrong, and while it's not a great measure the generic congressional ballot still has a generic Democrat seven points ahead of a generic Republican, which is essentially unmoved from the start of the crisis.

Ah, you are thinking of the  on the night polling numbers. I was thinking of current popular polling, where his numbers aren't that far off where they were when he won. 

I think It would take a profound collapse for him to poll that poorly when the country is so divided, but it's completely on the table as an outcome. I personally don't see the democrats as being competent enough to pull it off at that level.

[HanoiVillan]

Some of you may remember a post I made on here a while ago about homeless people sleeping in marked grids in car parks in Las Vegas, rather than in any of the empty luxury hotels in the immediate vicinity, so an update on that is . . . .of course it's still **** happening:

 

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some of you may remember a post I made on here a while ago about homeless people sleeping in marked grids in car parks in Las Vegas, rather than in any of the empty luxury hotels in the immediate vicinity, so an update on that is . . . .of course it's still **** happening:

 

No that’s an old photo. There was an outbreak of the virus in the local homeless shelter and so they moved people out onto that parking lot while the shelter was deep cleaned. The parking lot is a quarantine station today, with temporary medical and health facilities. 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/15/photos-las-vegas-parking-lot-hosts-homeless-people-during-coronavirus.html