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: 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?