COVID Economy

[Pakuni]

It would be an exercise in futility. Mitch has said he's not going to hold a vote. Doesn't matter whether there's a bill sitting there or not.

Unless you like political theater for the sake of political theater...

1. I do
2. Not passing a bill because you're afraid Mitch won't bring it to a vote allows him and the GOP majority to win without paying the political price. If he wants to be the villain here, make him at least do it in a very public way and let the voters decide whether or not to punish them for it. Don't wave the white flag before firing a single shot.

[GooooMarquette]

1. I do
2. Not passing a bill because you're afraid Mitch won't bring it to a vote allows him and the GOP majority to win without paying the political price. If he wants to be the villain here, make him at least do it in a very public way and let the voters decide whether or not to punish them for it. Don't wave the white flag before firing a single shot.

I see your point, but I guess we disagree on the significance of the House passing a bill that it knows the Senate won't pass. McConnell has already said very publicly that he won't take it to the floor for a vote, so I believe he has already cast himself as the villain.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

She can push a bill through the House and send it to the Senate. If Moscow Mitch is going to kill it,  he kills it. But right now she's not even forcing his hand.

This has already been done.  The only way to put more pressure on the senate to vote is to agree with the WH first, which is what is currently happening. 

[MU82]

She already had gotten 2 bills passed. The first, last spring, was obviously for show. But the second was mostly legit; hell, Trump said it wasn't enough.

[jesmu84]

I don't get why you keep saying "Pelosi should cave." All the reporting seems to indicate that she has already come to an agreement with Mnuchin, but McConnell will not allow the Senate to pass it.

What is she supposed to do? She can't force McConnell to call a vote on a bill he doesn't want to bring to the floor.

What Pak said. Agree to a bill with the WH. Put it publicly on the Senate to deny the people stimulus.

Personally, I don't think Pelosi will do it because the Dems believe and stimulus for the country could be counted as a win for Trump that could swing the election. And, secondly, I hope nothing does get passed because no one in congress is going to do anything meaningful for the majority of Americans and that's the only place the money should go

[GooooMarquette]

What Pak said. Agree to a bill with the WH. Put it publicly on the Senate to deny the people stimulus.

Personally, I don't think Pelosi will do it because the Dems believe and stimulus for the country could be counted as a win for Trump that could swing the election. And, secondly, I hope nothing does get passed because no one in congress is going to do anything meaningful for the majority of Americans and that's the only place the money should go

So you want her to pass something, but you also don't want anything to go through?

That's political theater for the purpose of political theater. I get that some people enjoy that, but I think it's kind of silly.

[Jockey]

I see your point, but I guess we disagree on the significance of the House passing a bill that it knows the Senate won't pass. McConnell has already said very publicly that he won't take it to the floor for a vote, so I believe he has already cast himself as the villain.

Which she has already done.

[GooooMarquette]

Which she has already done.

And now people here are calling for her to do it yet again. Why? How many futile bills will it take to make you happy?

[jesmu84]

So you want her to pass something, but you also don't want anything to go through?

That's political theater for the purpose of political theater. I get that some people enjoy that, but I think it's kind of silly.

Not exactly.

I want her to pass a stimulus bill for the people.

I don't think she (or anyone else in DC) would go for that type of bill, so I think we'd be better off with nothing.

I'm not all about that political drama.

[GooooMarquette]

Not exactly.

I want her to pass a stimulus bill for the people.

I don't think she (or anyone else in DC) would go for that type of bill, so I think we'd be better off with nothing.

I'm not all about that political drama.

I guess I'm confused between this and your earlier post. Earlier you said you wanted her to agree to a bill with the White House, even though it would never get through the Senate. Now you say you want her to pass something that neither the White House nor the Senate would support.

Maybe it's easiest if we take Pelosi out of this, because I agree with your bottom line sentiment - that we should help the people who are struggling the most. I also share your sense that this will never happen, and agree that doing nothing would be better than giving another handout to the wealthy.

Alas...

[The Sultan]

She can push a bill through the House and send it to the Senate. If Moscow Mitch is going to kill it,  he kills it. But right now she's not even forcing his hand.

I don't think political theatre is going to matter any more.  So many people have voted already that I don't think much can stop the outcome of 99% of the races at this point.  And the Reps are all home campaigning anyway.

Not to mention that one of the Dems strategies may be for Pelosi to lay low anyway.

[Pakuni]

I don't think political theatre is going to matter any more.  So many people have voted already that I don't think much can stop the outcome of 99% of the races at this point.  And the Reps are all home campaigning anyway.

Not to mention that one of the Dems strategies may be for Pelosi to lay low anyway.

About 35 million have voted so far. If the total vote is the same as 2016 - I think all signs point to it being higher, but for arguments sake - that means we're at roughly 22 percent of the total.
I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything is decided at this point.

[jesmu84]

I guess I'm confused between this and your earlier post. Earlier you said you wanted her to agree to a bill with the White House, even though it would never get through the Senate. Now you say you want her to pass something that neither the White House nor the Senate would support.

Maybe it's easiest if we take Pelosi out of this, because I agree with your bottom line sentiment - that we should help the people who are struggling the most. I also share your sense that this will never happen, and agree that doing nothing would be better than giving another handout to the wealthy.

Alas...

Agree with your second paragraph.

Huzzah

[The Sultan]

About 35 million have voted so far. If the total vote is the same as 2016 - I think all signs point to it being higher, but for arguments sake - that means we're at roughly 22 percent of the total.
I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything is decided at this point.

I just don't think much can be done to change people's minds at this point.  A Pelosi lead effort to try to get something through isn't going to move the needle much.

[Pakuni]

I just don't think much can be done to change people's minds at this point.  A Pelosi lead effort to try to get something through isn't going to move the needle much.

Oh, I agree. I think the number of undecideds is extremely tiny, if not nonexistent.  But I do think there are still levers out there that can get people to vote or not vote, depending on their leanings. For example, there may be nothing dumb Biden can do or say that would turn a Trump hater into Trump voter,  but it may keep that person at home.

[GooooMarquette]

About 35 million have voted so far. If the total vote is the same as 2016 - I think all signs point to it being higher, but for arguments sake - that means we're at roughly 22 percent of the total.
I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything is decided at this point.

Yes, but that 35 million number is artificially low, perhaps significantly so. A few examples why:

(1) several states (including NY, which is kinda big) still haven't reported absentee/early voting numbers at all;

(2) the numbers don't include ballots that have been mailed or dropped off but not yet received or entered into the system (here in MN, I dropped mine into a box at the voting office and it took a couple days for it to be officially 'recorded'); and

(3) some states only update their numbers periodically (examples: MN last updated October 16; MS - October 13; and several states last reported on October 19. Even though the latter is only two days, that could mean many millions of votes.)

I would not be the least bit surprised if the number who have actually completed and dropped off or mailed their ballot is at least double that reported.

[MU82]

I can maybe see some folks being undecided about U.S. Senate and House races, or state and local races.

But I am flabbergasted when I hear of folks who supposedly have not yet decided between two presidential candidates we already know everything about. One has been in public service for some 5 decades, and the other has been in our faces every hour of every day for 4 years.

Maybe they are waiting to see if one of them literally pulls down his drawers and takes a dump on the debate stage tomorrow night.

"Hmmm, I was going to vote for (insert candidate name), but after the excrement incident, I think I'll go for the other guy. Then again, I'm still a little undecided ... "

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

As far as what I read Undecideds this time in 2016 were 10%plus and in 2020 undecideds are under 5%. 

[Pakuni]

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled a willingness to allow the Senate to consider a stimulus deal struck between the Trump administration and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, potentially increasing the odds of renewed stimulus funding in the near term."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/20/mcconnell-says-white-house-backed-stimulus-bill-would-get-senate-floor-vote/#83461c05b267

[4everwarriors]

I can maybe see some folks being undecided about U.S. Senate and House races, or state and local races.

But I am flabbergasted when I hear of folks who supposedly have not yet decided between two presidential candidates we already know everything about. One has been in public service for some 5 decades, and the other has been in our faces every hour of every day for 4 years.

Maybe they are waiting to see if one of them literally pulls down his drawers and takes a dump on the debate stage tomorrow night.

"Hmmm, I was going to vote for (insert candidate name), but after the excrement incident, I think I'll go for the other guy. Then again, I'm still a little undecided ... "

I find it hard to believe also. Especially, when one candidate has accomplished more in 47 months, than the other has in 47 years, aina?

[The Sultan]

I find it hard to believe also. Especially, when one candidate has accomplished more in 47 months, than the other has in 47 years, aina?

Sending the country down the toilet in 47 months *is* an accomplishment.  Just not one that warrants another run. 

[Uncle Rico]

 

I find it hard to believe also. Especially, when one candidate has accomplished more in 47 months, than the other has in 47 years, aina?

Was this supposed to be in teal?

[tower912]

Not from him.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Sending the country down the toilet in 47 months *is* an accomplishment.  Just not one that warrants another run.

What the petulant man-child tries to "accomplish" in the  2 1/2 months between being voted out and being dragged from the office is going to be an extreme test of our democracy.

[Billy Hoyle]

What the petulant man-child tries to "accomplish" in the  2 1/2 months between being voted out and being dragged from the office is going to be an extreme test of our democracy.

A friend and I had a text conversation last night wondering which country turns on him first and exposes what they were doing for him: China or Russia. 

Also, which Trump spawn goes to jail first? Watch it be Tiffany.