SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More Than 200 Republicans in Congress Are Skipping February Town Halls with Constituents
VICE News reports on Feb 16:
Members of Congress are set to return to their districts this weekend for their first weeklong recess since Donald Trump's inauguration. Heading home during legislative breaks is nothing new, but this year most Republicans are foregoing a hallowed recess tradition: holding in-person town halls where lawmakers take questions from constituents in a high school gym, local restaurant, or college classroom.
After outpourings of rage at some early town halls--including crowds at an event near Salt Lake City yelling "Do your job!" at Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee--many Republicans are ducking in-person events altogether. Instead they're opting for more controlled Facebook Live or "tele-town halls," where questions can be screened by press secretaries and followups are limited--as are the chances of becoming the next viral meme of the Left.
For the first two months of the new Congress, the 292 Republicans have scheduled just 88 in-person town hall events--and 35 of those sessions are for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, according to a tabulation conducted by Legistorm. In the first two months of the previous Congress in 2015, by contrast, Republicans held 222 in-person town hall events.
[...] "What happens in politics is that over time, you can get increasingly insulated from people that have a strongly held point of view that's different [from yours]", [said Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina]. Sessions like tele-town halls aren't a good substitute, he said, because "oftentimes they will screen their calls and those forums can be manipulated".
Republicans who get [verbally] roughed up at their town halls have taken to dismissing the attendees as professional organizers. [...] While there is no evidence of paid protesters attending town halls, it is true that Democratic activists have been organizing to manufacture viral moments of confrontation like the tea party movement did in the summer of 2009.
[...] One strategy for activists has been to host their own town halls and invite their representatives to attend. [...] Another method has been to confront senators and representative in public places and demand they hold a town hall.
Examples throughout the week at AlterNet and The Daily Hampshire Gazette of Northampton, Massachusetts.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:50PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:30PM
There are lots of reasons for a big win -- for this example the Dems might not have found a good opponent to run?
Reverse happened here, a well liked Dem representative nearly ran unopposed until the Repubs found a former local council member as a sacrificial lamb to put on the ballot. I'm sure that this Dem does not have the yuuge support of his district that could be inferred from his victory margin.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:55PM
That's what democracy is. It is sharp and pointy and uncomfortable. If representatives get too cozy, they're up to no good.
I would also point out that doing this sort of thing was also done by Tea Party people when Obama was in office. Tea Party people showed up to them with assault rifles, even. I thought that was a nice touch, personally; Congress needs to have constant, clear reminders of what really happens if they continue to not do their jobs. So the people who are showing up to protest at these town halls ought to do likewise.
Having a gentile conversation over milk and cookies is the opposite of what we need to be doing now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:13PM
I'm sure that Ethanol-fueled will agree. 8-)
A spellchecker wouldn't have caught that one.
I don't think that any other readily-available mechanized method would have either.
That's OK; it was good for a smile in the middle of a very serious (meta)thread.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:35PM
Good catch. Always preview your post, eh?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:44PM
But there is no reason why a Congresscritter is obligated to aid his enemies in staging a photo op. You hold town halls to hear from voters, when paid protesters take them over and make such a ruckus that communication isn't possible there isn't any benefit for the Congressman.
No, what I'd do if I were in Congress is put in a call to the local Sheriff and have him roll in paddywagons and every available officer two minutes after the start of the event, after the doors close. Then I'd stand up on stage and announce, "May I have you attention for a brief housekeeping announcement? I firmly believe in the right of peaceful protest so you may now get it out of your system. Wave your signs, shout insults, etc. The national media are invited to get their fill of footage, get up here on stage so you can get good camera angles. In fifteen minutes we are clearing the room of all media that aren't local to the district. We will then clear the room of everyone who isn't registered to vote in this congressional district. Be assured with have more than adequate law enforcement on hand to ensure this remains peaceful. (doors open, police in full riot gear enter) We will then proceed to hold a normal town hall. Thank you."
This would signal your utter indifference to the #FakeNews and their manufactured protests to generate b-roll on CNN. One application would probably be sufficient to ensure peaceful interactions with constituents for a few years. Never run from Progs, it only goads them to ever greater discivic antics. Do pop them on the nose like a misbehaving puppy and rub their nose in shit. Triggering them is fun.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:55PM
I do not recall you voicing any such objections about the Tea Party's behavior during Obama's administration. They did exactly the same, and were every bit as obnoxious as these, now.
Even if the protestors weren't local, even if they were paid, even if they were staging photo ops, even if they were all personal lackies of Soros, they still have the right and obligation to go to these town halls and get in the face of the Congressmen and Senators who pass laws that affect the entire country. Whether there's personal benefit for the Congressmen and Senators in question is irrelevant. They serve at our leisure, not the other way around. If anything, they ought to be required to appear at town halls at least once a month.
Part of the problem with the country over the last few decades is that the apparatus of the federal government has grown dangerously divorced from the daily lives of the Americans it purports to serve. They disappear inside the Beltway, where they have daily contact with lobbyists and lawyers and other varieties of scum, and never hear from the regular people whose lives are directly affected by the federal government, and whom they can fully, safely ignore without consequences. That's the origin of the phrase, "Inside the Beltway Thinking."
It would be preferable to Trump and Congress if everyone acquiesced to their whims. It would be delightful to Trump supporters if his opponents gracefully accepted defeat and got with the program. But that is not how democracy works. At all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:06PM
Not really. A town hall is so a Congressman can actually hear from the people who voted for him. If paid trolls come in to make that impossible you must either be willing to remove the trolls or stop doing them. No they do not have the right to "get in people's face." Show me that one in the Constitution. They have the right to stage a photo op, but not at someone else's event. You probably have no idea how tired we are getting over you entitled turds who turn up everywhere and hijack events, we are also getting pretty tired of the media who goad you on by allowing the fact you managed to smuggle in a banner the claim spot lead in their coverage vs the actual event. Take careful note of the enthusiasm for Trump's applause line of restoring the Rule of Law. For ORDER, because if you can't maintain order nothing else productive is possible.
I went to town halls during the Tea Party period. The moved them to much larger venues than normal because of the crowd size, there were a few zanies, but they were still peaceful events where people got to ask questions and hear the answers. There were a few cheers, there were some loud BOOS, but order was maintained because the crowd couldn't imagine it any other way. Despite the attempts at false equivalence to justify your side's bad behavior, it remains true that we are NOT the same. My other side is inherently civilized, even when angry, while the Prog side is not.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:01PM
constituent: (noun) any one of the people who live and vote in an area : a member of a constituency
It's the job of a representative to represent *all* their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:09PM
And at that point, what's the purpose of holding propaganda sessions for opponents of the politician?
First I dispute your premise that the only people they represent are those who voted for them. That is the nihilistic, juvenile shit analysis of someone who has no idea how the american political system works.
Second, even from a strategic viewpoint its stupid. People who don't really care that much don't vote. But pissed off people vote hard, even when they think they are going to lose. And the surest way to piss off your constituents is to treat them like they don't matter. At a minimum he's better off showing up and taking a beating now when there are still nearly 2 more years before the next election cycle, plenty of time for people to forget the controversy of today, than he is ignoring them and thus letting their anger build up even more pressure.
Third, it isn't just democrats who are unhappy about Obamacare repeal. Obamacare has disproportionately benefited trump voters - rural, poor, old and white. Medicaid expansion alone brought in 10 million new people and 6.3M of the 11.5M who signed up on the federal exchange live in republican districts. [kff.org] Lots of these trumpanezes thought trump was bullshiting about repealing obamacare. But the republican party wasn't. Their goal is to defund obamacare and give the money back to the rich in the form of tax cuts. All of their proposed replacements hit trump voters the hardest - increasing the amount insurance companies can charge old people and reducing the amount that young people have to pay, even eliminating the mandate to purchase that keeps the whole thing solvent. Charging 30%-50% more for people with pre-existing conditions. Pushing for tax-deductible health-savings accounts, when poor people have no money to put into an HSA. Etc, etc.
Ignoring these protests is the coward's move and if they think gerrymandering will save them, then they don't understand who they are screwing with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:49PM
I like your comment.
It's nice to encounter someone here with just as much anti-Reactionary venom as I have.
If I have any negative critique of the comment (Hey, I'm old; what else do I have to do), it's that the longest paragraph could have used 1 more paragraph break so that it would be a bit easier for old farts with bad eyes (such as I) to read.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:15PM
Ignoring these protests is the coward's move and if they think gerrymandering will save them, then they don't understand who they are screwing with.
I disagree; I think they understand full well who they're dealing with. They're dealing with idiot voters who voted for Trump and the Republicans, because they're angry racists who hate Hispanics and abortion, and ignored all the economic parts of their platforms, which basically boils down to "cut taxes on the rich and screw everyone else", which includes them. I'll tell you how this is going to turn out: these poorer/working class Republican voters are going to get screwed, HARD, and won't have decent healthcare among other things. They're going to be very unhappy, while all the "libtards" they complain about will be making decent money and enjoying decent health benefits even though they tried to provide them to everyone. Red state Republicans are going to be especially hit hard. Then, in the upcoming elections, these miserable GOP voters are going to go to the polls, and vote for even more GOP politicians, probably more alt-right ones who crank up the xenophobia and hate, plus the standard anti-abortion, anti-gay, lower taxes on the rich, etc. rhetoric, and they're going to get the same terrible economic policies that have screwed them. These GOP candidates will win again because the DNC is too busy putting more big-money Establishment people into power, so the liberals and progressives are going to fail to turn up at the polls again. We'll have another 4 years of Trump (or someone even worse, if Trump decides he's had enough and wants to go do something else).
The bottom line: these "rural, poor, old and white" Trump voters you talk of will NEVER figure out that right-wing economic policies are killing them, and will continue to vote for them. And they aren't going to die out either; there's a healthy new crop of young Trump voters rising up to replace them (rural, poor, young and white).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:41AM
First I dispute your premise that the only people they represent are those who voted for them. That is the nihilistic, juvenile shit analysis of someone who has no idea how the american political system works.
Sure, you can dispute that. It's a free country.
Second, even from a strategic viewpoint its stupid. People who don't really care that much don't vote. But pissed off people vote hard, even when they think they are going to lose. And the surest way to piss off your constituents is to treat them like they don't matter. At a minimum he's better off showing up and taking a beating now when there are still nearly 2 more years before the next election cycle, plenty of time for people to forget the controversy of today, than he is ignoring them and thus letting their anger build up even more pressure.
But once again, they're not going to vote for him ever. So the threat of them maybe getting up and going to a voting booth is already greatly diluted.
Third, it isn't just democrats who are unhappy about Obamacare repeal. Obamacare has disproportionately benefited trump voters - rural, poor, old and white. Medicaid expansion alone brought in 10 million new people and 6.3M of the 11.5M who signed up on the federal exchange live in republican districts.
How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
Their goal is to defund obamacare and give the money back to the rich in the form of tax cuts.
And Obamacare was about throwing money to the insurance companies, right? So what's supposed to be different here?
All of their proposed replacements hit trump voters the hardest - increasing the amount insurance companies can charge old people and reducing the amount that young people have to pay, even eliminating the mandate to purchase that keeps the whole thing solvent.
Obamacare was going to collapse. Why is the Republican way out worse than escalating costs that the insurance companies won't cover, increasing amounts that poor young people pay? And continuing the unconstitutional and tyrannical mandates that fail to keep the whole thing remotely solvent?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:29PM
> Sure, you can dispute that. It's a free country.
Twat.
> But once again, they're not going to vote for him ever.
Once again, twat.
What part of "base" do you fail to understand?
If they show up angry at a town hall, they sure as fuck as going to vote.
> How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
What kind of question is that? Are you admitting you don't know how medicaid expansion works?
If you don't even understand that, why are you pontificating at all?
We don't need to see you masturbate.
> And Obamacare was about throwing money to the insurance companies, right?
Wrong. You stupid fucking twat. It was about getting over 20 million people coverage who did not have it before.
The fact that insurance companies got 20 million new paying customers is how a commercial market for insurance works.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:19PM
What part of "base" do you fail to understand? If they show up angry at a town hall, they sure as fuck as going to vote.
Just like they showed up for Clinton? Sorry, I don't take such threats seriously until they show up and vote.
How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
What kind of question is that? Are you admitting you don't know how medicaid expansion works? If you don't even understand that, why are you pontificating at all? We don't need to see you masturbate.
Most of the people who got insurance got Medicaid. I keep seeing stories like this [hotair.com] or this [forbes.com].
The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”
[...]
There were almost 4.79 million new enrollees in private individual market plans in 2014. However, as Heritage’s researchers noted, 4.53 million people lost their employment-based group coverage during that same time. This leaves a paltry 260,000 people with new private health insurance.
and
On the latter question[Second, how many of the newly insured simply ended up on an expanded (and decaying) Medicaid program?], according to the Goldman analysis, about two-thirds of the 2014 coverage increase was from the expansion in Medicaid. For 2014, their figures for net new coverage includes 9 million more people obligated to Medicaid, and about 2 million aging into Medicare. Only about 3 million got commercial coverage.
Multiple studies show much more growth into Medicaid than gained private insurance.
Wrong. You stupid fucking twat. It was about getting over 20 million people coverage who did not have it before. The fact that insurance companies got 20 million new paying customers is how a commercial market for insurance works.
It was about getting over 40 million coverage, not merely reducing that number by 13 million [kff.org].
The ACA’s major coverage provisions went into effect in January 2014 and have led to significant coverage gains. As of the end of 2015, the number of uninsured nonelderly Americans stood at 28.5 million, a decrease of nearly 13 million since 2013. This fact sheet describes how coverage has changed under the ACA, examines the characteristics of the uninsured population, and summarizes the access and financial implications of not having coverage.
and a more recent breakdown of who got new insurance:
Coverage gains were seen in new ACA coverage options. As of March 2016, over 11 million people were enrolled in state or federal Marketplace plans,1 and as of June 2016, Medicaid enrollment had grown by over 15 million (27%) since the period before open enrollment (which started in October 2013).
Notice how Medicaid rolls just by themselves grew by more than the number of uninsured declined?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:05PM
A crowd yelling "Do your job" at someone (Jason Chaffetz) who just won a couple of months earlier with 74% of the vote, probably isn't his constituents and probably never voted for him.
Wrong.
You would have a point if the people in the crowd are not in fact from his district, and that was your only complaint. However, if the people *do* live in his district, it doesn't matter if they voted for him or not: they're still his constituents. Constituents are the people who live in a Congressman's district; it's not limited to people who voted for him. So if they're valid constituents, they have *every* right to loudly complain about the way he's doing his job at his town meetings.
Personally, I would be OK with them checking IDs, utility receipts, etc. to make sure people attending the meetings are not political operatives from out-of-state. That's really not fair; a well-organized group of people from California traveling to, say, Virginia to crash a town-hall meeting for a Congressman there reeks, because they really aren't his constituents and he doesn't have to answer to them. But if a minority of angry constituents who voted for his opponent want to show up and raise hell, they have *every* right to do so. It's his job to work for them, and that includes listening to their complaints. If other constituents don't like it, they're free to show up and crowd out the unhappy minority.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:21AM
You would have a point if the people in the crowd are not in fact from his district, and that was your only complaint. However, if the people *do* live in his district, it doesn't matter if they voted for him or not: they're still his constituents. Constituents are the people who live in a Congressman's district; it's not limited to people who voted for him. So if they're valid constituents, they have *every* right to loudly complain about the way he's doing his job at his town meetings.
Indeed. And the politician in turn has every right to ignore them. My view is that two months in on a strong election, this isn't real opposition. It's just blowhards temporarily overwhelming a system and there's a good chance that the people who did vote for Chaffetz will given him stronger support for it. Votes is how elected politicians stay power, not subjecting themselves to empty demands from protestors who have no interest in negotiation or discussion. In this case, I don't see any gain for Chaffetz from showing up. As I noted before, these protestors probably never voted for him and never will. They have nothing to offer him in exchange for listening and plenty of drawback to doing so. Thus, he has no reason to play the game.