Tim Scott: “You strike, you’re fired! Simple concept to me”

[Progressive Pessimist]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

[quesaisje]

This guy is one of the worst politicians I’ve ever seen. Everything that comes out of his mouth is the most unpopular way to frame the most right-wing policies.

The real funny thing is he only has his Senate seat because of affirmative action, probably one of the most blatant examples ever, the previous incumbent resigned in early 2013 to take some lobbyist gig and he got appointed to it despite having only served in the House for a single term and had only been in the South Carolina House for a single term prior to that. So why did he get appointed over the many ambitious Republicans in South Carolina and all the other House members who were no doubt interested with much more tenure? I think it's pretty obvious.

He's also a good fundraiser.

My theory of Tim Scott is that he's at this level of politics because he's so good at talking large donors out of their money that they've fooled themselves into believing that he's more than that.

The reality is that he's a successful but mild-mannered insurance salesman, and it shows.

[Person Man]

Basically he’s on the record for thinking unions should be illegal.

[MasterJedi]

Basically he’s on the record for thinking unions should be illegal.

Is anyone surprised? That’s a standard Republican position. They only believe police/fire unions should exist, as long as they don’t strike of course.

[Person Man]

Basically he’s on the record for thinking unions should be illegal.

Is anyone surprised? That’s a standard Republican position. They only believe police/fire unions should exist, as long as they don’t strike of course.

I guess it follows what’s going on with abortion or social security. They just say they are going to cancel it or make it illegal and move on.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Is this a race to the bottom on who’s the worse possible candidate for ‘24? Or is there a concerted effort to somehow make Trump look good by comparison?

[Sir Mohamed]

Shame on me I ever though this dude was a good candidate for the GE. It just seems like all the "great on paper" candidates are a total flop. See Rubio 2016.

[Vosem]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

I mean, we also have referendums in California and elections explicitly fought on the issue in Massachusetts/Vermont where universal healthcare has lost; when an election is actually fought on the issue the majority within the Democratic Party does not seem so strong, to say nothing of Republican positioning.

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain). This is true even though it isn't that strange for strikes to be popular in polling; this is another case where actual voter behavior and the things that issue polling shows just completely fail to connect to each other.

Anyway, I think Scott's problem is that nobody cares. I think if this does get attention it would not meaningfully hurt him in either the primary or the general, but there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to him.

[RI]

Welp, I guess I'm not voting for Scott, either. I did really like him.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Ok that’s it he’s the most anti union politician in America.Scott Walker wouldn’t even say something like this lol.

[KaiserDave]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

I mean, we also have referendums in California and elections explicitly fought on the issue in Massachusetts/Vermont where universal healthcare has lost; when an election is actually fought on the issue the majority within the Democratic Party does not seem so strong, to say nothing of Republican positioning.

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain). This is true even though it isn't that strange for strikes to be popular in polling; this is another case where actual voter behavior and the things that issue polling shows just completely fail to connect to each other.

Anyway, I think Scott's problem is that nobody cares. I think if this does get attention it would not meaningfully hurt him in either the primary or the general, but there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to him.

Which election in Vermont was won on the basis of healthcare?

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

I mean, we also have referendums in California and elections explicitly fought on the issue in Massachusetts/Vermont where universal healthcare has lost; when an election is actually fought on the issue the majority within the Democratic Party does not seem so strong, to say nothing of Republican positioning.

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain). This is true even though it isn't that strange for strikes to be popular in polling; this is another case where actual voter behavior and the things that issue polling shows just completely fail to connect to each other.

Anyway, I think Scott's problem is that nobody cares. I think if this does get attention it would not meaningfully hurt him in either the primary or the general, but there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to him.

Which election in Vermont was won on the basis of healthcare?

He’s talking about VT Governor 2014 I think. They were working out single payer but Shumlin backed away from it after he only won by a point

[KaiserDave]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

I mean, we also have referendums in California and elections explicitly fought on the issue in Massachusetts/Vermont where universal healthcare has lost; when an election is actually fought on the issue the majority within the Democratic Party does not seem so strong, to say nothing of Republican positioning.

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain). This is true even though it isn't that strange for strikes to be popular in polling; this is another case where actual voter behavior and the things that issue polling shows just completely fail to connect to each other.

Anyway, I think Scott's problem is that nobody cares. I think if this does get attention it would not meaningfully hurt him in either the primary or the general, but there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to him.

Which election in Vermont was won on the basis of healthcare?

He’s talking about VT Governor 2014 I think. They were working out single payer but Shumlin backed away from it after he only won by a point

Yes I imagined he was thinking about VT-GOV 2014, but Shumlin did win....

[Vosem]

Easy to talk about how Biden would beat him but you underestimate the capacity of voters to simply decide to believe that this isn't actually his position, and in fact the polar opposite is his real position, and he only said this as part of some clever ruse.

That only seems to work for Trump which is what makes him such a threat.

Most other Republicans don't have the brazen ability to get away with inconsisties and deceit that he does, nor the willingness to do so. Their devotion to ideological purity is making them irrelevant while Trump acts like a chameleon and gets away with it.

There was some poll maybe a decade ago where 50% of Republican Iowa caucus voters supported single payer. And Trump supported single payer in his first Presidential run that everyone forgets about.

I mean, we also have referendums in California and elections explicitly fought on the issue in Massachusetts/Vermont where universal healthcare has lost; when an election is actually fought on the issue the majority within the Democratic Party does not seem so strong, to say nothing of Republican positioning.

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain). This is true even though it isn't that strange for strikes to be popular in polling; this is another case where actual voter behavior and the things that issue polling shows just completely fail to connect to each other.

Anyway, I think Scott's problem is that nobody cares. I think if this does get attention it would not meaningfully hurt him in either the primary or the general, but there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to him.

Which election in Vermont was won on the basis of healthcare?

Actually a fairly bad example because Vermont is an example of the over-performance here; when Peter Shumlin tried to create a universal healthcare system in the state he was held to a 46-45 reelection margin in 2014. (Arguably the Phil Scott governorship exists because of healthcare, but I won't say that 2016 VT-Gov was fought on that issue in a direct way).

More direct examples are the 2022 referendum in California and 2010 MA-Sen; another example of something like VT-Gov 2014 would be the Insurance Commissioner election in CA in 2018, when the Democrat was held to a margin of 52-48 in spite of it being 2018 in California, because of his support for universal healthcare.

These elections are rare outside of ultra-blue states, because Democrats don't often run on platforms of enacting universal healthcare outside of ultra-blue states. But when they do the pattern of Republicans running roughly 30 points ahead of baseline is very consistent; my guess here is when the chips are down literally every usual Republican voter is against universal healthcare and usual Democratic voters only support it by around 60-40 or so.

~~

Talking about unions is actually harder than talking about healthcare, just because there are so few elections in the 21st century that have been fought on 'union relations' as an issue. 2012 WI-Gov as a large conservative victory is obvious, and perhaps 2014 MI-Gov, but beyond those my mind reaches to state legislative races in rural Virginia in the 1980s, when there was indeed a string of union-organizing victories -- this is why I specified higher-than-state-legislative level.

Right-to-work referendums do still lose pretty routinely (although the trend is that right-to-work does better over time, this is very slow and it is still a loser except in the reddest of states) -- the recent pattern is that "right-to-work" runs at about 70% of Republican support in most states -- but it's hard to think of a politician who has lost because they supported right-to-work, or even taken much of a hit. It's not an issue that is a slam-dunk for the GOP like healthcare is, but at the same time "anyone who expresses even quite strongly anti-union sentiments is doomed" is just obviously false; candidates like this sometimes win even in states which are both union-heavy and not that favorable for their party.

[quesaisje]

Shumlin's single payer fiasco was a political disaster for his administration, so it's a fair example to cite even if he won re-election on a thin plurality. He left office two years later completely humiliated.

There's also the small matter of Shumlin being one of the most incompetent people to hold statewide office in Vermont's modern history, but that's why he won on the single payer scheme to begin with. He was the only person with enough stature to be a real contender who was also dumb enough to stake his political career on a castle in the clouds.

Shumlin's incompetence was comprehensive, so the single payer plan isn't the only reason that voters turned on him. (Here's one example, see here for more.)

There's some nuance to the story, but it's a decent illustration of how single payer quickly becomes political poison.

[quesaisje]

My observation here is that in practice I don't think there's a single coherent post-1970s example of an American politician at a higher-than-state-legislative level losing a fight with unions (and I can't even off-handedly think of an example of someone failing to gain).

There has been a long factional slog within the Democratic Party between teachers' unions and reformers, with Obama staking his education agenda on the latter.

A decade since the height of that struggle, I don't think there's any question of who came out on top. Biden's administration has been unambiguous in putting teachers unions first.

If you're looking for a clear example of this mattering at the ballot box, we have a clear example of consequences just a few months ago in the Chicago mayoral runoff. Vallas's history in higher ed administration, especially his support for charter schools and his antagonistic relationship with teachers' unions, was a (maybe the) leading attack on him in the run-off.

[Lief 🗽]

Only 18% of Americans “oppose” the strike. How many of those actually want the strikers to be fired though, as opposed to just being against it in the abstract? Half of that, at most? This is an insane fringe position!

[jamestroll]

Definitely not in the private sector lol

What a clown

[President Johnson]

A brief reminder that even an overwhelming majority of Republican officials and office seekers are just terrible politically without Trump or those that are not 100% in his cult. Heck, many are equally worse and lack the entertaining factor Trump brings in.

[Horus]

Only 18% of Americans “oppose” the strike. How many of those actually want the strikers to be fired though, as opposed to just being against it in the abstract? Half of that, at most? This is an insane fringe position!

And Biden is letting Trump beat him to the picket line on a very popular issue. Unreal. I'm starting to wonder if the Dems are making a mistake by letting this guy get through the primary without a real fight. How the hell do you miss such an easy layup?

[GeneralMacArthur]

And Biden is letting Trump beat him to the picket line on a very popular issue. Unreal. I'm starting to wonder if the Dems are making a mistake by letting this guy get through the primary without a real fight. How the hell do you miss such an easy layup?

Why are people so obsessed with Biden physically going to places where things are happening?  Are you guys that desperate for photo-ops?

Biden's busy at the U.N. right now working with Zelensky to try and keep together the anti-Russia coalition.  I'd much rather have him be doing that than pointlessly flying up to Detroit so he can get his pictures taken on the picket line with a bunch of auto workers striking.

[Horus]

And Biden is letting Trump beat him to the picket line on a very popular issue. Unreal. I'm starting to wonder if the Dems are making a mistake by letting this guy get through the primary without a real fight. How the hell do you miss such an easy layup?

Why are people so obsessed with Biden physically going to places where things are happening?  Are you guys that desperate for photo-ops?

Biden's busy at the U.N. right now working with Zelensky to try and keep together the anti-Russia coalition.  I'd much rather have him be doing that than pointlessly flying up to Detroit so he can get his pictures taken on the picket line with a bunch of auto workers striking.

Do you know what optics are? The average American cares about this far more than Ukraine. You're in a bubble.

[jojoju1998]

And Biden is letting Trump beat him to the picket line on a very popular issue. Unreal. I'm starting to wonder if the Dems are making a mistake by letting this guy get through the primary without a real fight. How the hell do you miss such an easy layup?

Why are people so obsessed with Biden physically going to places where things are happening?  Are you guys that desperate for photo-ops?

Biden's busy at the U.N. right now working with Zelensky to try and keep together the anti-Russia coalition.  I'd much rather have him be doing that than pointlessly flying up to Detroit so he can get his pictures taken on the picket line with a bunch of auto workers striking.

Do you know what optics are? The average American cares about this far more than Ukraine. You're in a bubble.

If the President of the UAW, asked Biden to come, he would certainly come.


So why hasn’t he asked ??


Hot take : The Republican base is far more like the UAW nowadays vs. the modern Democratic Party which is college educated, white collar salaried workers.

[GeneralMacArthur]

And Biden is letting Trump beat him to the picket line on a very popular issue. Unreal. I'm starting to wonder if the Dems are making a mistake by letting this guy get through the primary without a real fight. How the hell do you miss such an easy layup?

Why are people so obsessed with Biden physically going to places where things are happening?  Are you guys that desperate for photo-ops?

Biden's busy at the U.N. right now working with Zelensky to try and keep together the anti-Russia coalition.  I'd much rather have him be doing that than pointlessly flying up to Detroit so he can get his pictures taken on the picket line with a bunch of auto workers striking.

Do you know what optics are? The average American cares about this far more than Ukraine. You're in a bubble.

Optics optics optics optics optics optics optics

I'm so f---ing sick of hearing about optics

It's the last resort of the soundrel.  Or the dogs--t political pundit.  Whenever you can't think of any real reason to be mad at Biden you just get mad at him for "optics."  a.k.a. "I know he's not actually doing anything wrong, but other people might think so because it looks like he's doing something wrong -- and that, in itself, is wrong."

Even though you're the one saying that it looks like he's doing something wrong.  Because the only reason why it looks wrong is... wait for it... optics!

So sick of it.