Red Mosquito

I thought Pete's husband would be better looking.

so Chuck D fired Flava Flav over a Bernie thing. wild.

McParadigm wrote:

That's a little misleading... this appears to be a play by the Blue team to make the election about the ACA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/s ... ppeal.html

verb_to_trust wrote:Warren is all delusion/ego at this point

Nah, if Warren wants to be president her best play is as a compromise choice at a contested convention. So she needs to stay through Super Tuesday and try to keep Bernie below 40% of pledged delegates. The closer he gets to 50%, the better his argument becomes that super delegates should hand him the nomination despite not winning a majority of delegates. She needs to stop him from winning a larger plurality.

Maybe I'm delusional, but I think she has the second best chance of becoming the nominee behind Bernie.

4/5 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Warren is all delusion/ego at this point

Nah, if Warren wants to be president her best play is as a compromise choice at a contested convention. So she needs to stay through Super Tuesday and try to keep Bernie below 40% of pledged delegates. The closer he gets to 50%, the better his argument becomes that super delegates should hand him the nomination despite not winning a majority of delegates. She needs to stop him from winning a larger plurality.

Maybe I'm delusional, but I think she has the second best chance of becoming the nominee behind Bernie.

This seems right. Err... left. But not too far left. Just the tip.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

That's a little misleading... this appears to be a play by the Blue team to make the election about the ACA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/s ... ppeal.html

The Republican Senate set the tax penalty to zero.

Republicans then initiated lawsuits claiming that because the zero penalty meant the law had no tax, it no longer fell under the protection of taxing powers and was therefore not constitutional. A Republican judge (a former Republican Senate staffer) agreed. Then, so did the Republican members of the appeals court.

The Trump administration then publicly expressed a hope that the resulting Supreme Court case would be delayed until after the election.

This “team blue” scheme to make the election about healthcare sure seems to have a lot of red players in it.

It reads more to me like the Republican Party wanting to run existential lawsuits against the healthcare act without actually having those lawsuits inform people’s decision whether or not to vote for them.

And also, even then it’s not a misleading summary. This case going before the court does factually mean that Republicans will be arguing against the ACA in court at the height of the election cycle.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

That's a little misleading... this appears to be a play by the Blue team to make the election about the ACA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/s ... ppeal.html

The Republican Senate set the tax penalty to zero.

Republicans then initiated lawsuits claiming that because the zero penalty meant the law had no tax, it no longer fell under the protection of taxing powers and was therefore not constitutional. A Republican judge (a former Republican Senate staffer) agreed. Then, so did the Republican members of the appeals court.

The Trump administration then publicly expressed a hope that the resulting Supreme Court case would be delayed until after the election.

This “team blue” scheme to make the election about healthcare sure seems to have a lot of red players in it.

It reads more to me like the Republican Party wanting to run existential lawsuits against the healthcare act without actually having those lawsuits inform people’s decision whether or not to vote for them.

While some or all of that might be accurate, I cant even see the goal posts anymore.

Here's what the case is:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a third major case on the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s health care law, granting petitions from Democratic state officials and the House of Representatives in a case with the potential to wipe out the entire law.

The court did not say when it would hear the case, but, under its ordinary practices, arguments would be held in the fall and a decision would land in the spring or summer of 2021. The arguments could occur just as the presidential campaign reaches full throttle, timing that Democrats hope will be bad for Mr. Trump and fellow Republicans on the ballot.

background:

In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but declined to rule on the fate of the remainder of the health law, asking the lower court to reconsider the question in more detail.

The Democratic states and the House, which intervened in the case to defend the health law, asked the Supreme Court to put its consideration of whether to hear the appeal on an unusually fast track. The court turned down that request in January. Having lost that fight, the states and the House asked the court to hear their appeal in the ordinary course.

It's a smart move, the ACA is very popular and is a much more sensible approach to improving coverage and outcomes than Bernie's bankruptcy-for-all plan.

The whole "it's constitutional but only as a tax so let's get rid of the tax and it'll be unconstitutional" was kinda genius. It'd be hilarious if the timing of that case ends up destroying them electorally, though.

Edit: Apparently I'm too stupid to post a gif. Wtf.

4/5 wrote:The whole "it's constitutional but only as a tax so let's get rid of the tax and it'll be unconstitutional" was kinda genius. It'd be hilarious if the timing of that case ends up destroying them electorally, though.

Agreed on all counts.

Klobachar out and apparently is going to endorse Biden tonight.

finally, some semblance of common sense . . .

Jesus, couldn't they stagger this so it wasn't so blatantly obvious what is going on? Unreal.

biden was never my first choice. hell, he wasn't my 5th choice among the moderates. but given the circumstances, i'm perfectly comfortable with him. and a biden/warren ticket would be ok (notwithstanding the fact that they're collectively 150 years old).

I’ve been wondering what that Klob vs Pete fight was during the debate...why they were sniping at each other when neither was a front runner or major hurtle to the other. My assumption was that someone had made clear that they were both up for the same support post...possibly a VP spot. Given their quick exits the moment Biden has momentum, it’s pretty clear who they’ve been talking to.