Why Trump is scaling back the contraception mandate and trying to destroy Obamacare

The Washington Compost ^ | October 6, 2017 | Paul Waldman

[E. Pluribus Unum]

One of the enduring mysteries of the Trump era so far is how the president maintains the steadfast loyalty of many of the Republican Party’s key constituent groups despite the fact that his presidency has been a long series of blunders, bumbles, pratfalls and screw-ups, all against a backdrop of White House chaos and naked corruption.

I have a theory to explain it, one that can be seen in today’s big news that the Trump administration has issued a rule to dramatically cut back the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate and in the administration’s ongoing sabotage of the ACA in general.

The explanation comes down to this: Trump is willing to do things that are politically foolhardy in order to satisfy his base voters, no matter how limited a portion of the electorate they make up. This is certainly not rooted in any principles — instead it likely reflects either a failure to understand how things play with the broader electorate or that he believes a relentless focus on maintaining that base’s loyalty is the key to his political survival, or some combination of both.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Uhhh... because he promised to?

[madison10]

There is NO reason why people who DO NOT NEED CONTRACEPTION should be paying for the contraception of OTHERS, especially when abortion is considered to be contraception.

That is why he is getting rid of it...and he did promise.

[onedoug]

Because he’s not øbama or crinton.

[Cementjungle]

his presidency has been a long series of blunders, bumbles, pratfalls and screw-ups, all against a backdrop of White House chaos and naked corruption

I call it "winning".

[Fungi]

The sine qua non of the leftist media is "always start with a false premise, then proceed." "naked corruption." Pure unadulterated crap. These leftists are truly insane, and blinded by their ideology.

[Parmy]

What blunder, bumbles, pratfalls, etc. is this guy talking about? What looks like a pratfall, et.al, is in these peoples minds.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“...how the president maintains the steadfast loyalty of many of the Republican Party’s key constituent groups...”

Straw Man Argument right off the bat! American PATRIOTS love President Trump - it has NOTHING to do with being a, ‘Republican’ anymore!

And Thank G-d for THAT! :)

MAGA!

[facedown]

Waldman is an alumni of Media Matters. ‘Nuff said.

[SaxxonWoods]

Trump is so dumb about politics. Doesn’t understand how it works, yada yada yada.

Where does that put Hillary?

[ForYourChildren]

Works for me.

[xp38]

Sandra Fluke will be crying into her pillow tonight

[antidisestablishment]

Dumb about politics:
Says something and actually does it.

Doesn’t understand how it works:
Follows his heart rather than some contrived elitist protocol.

Trump was elected as the antithesis to politics-as-usual. That’s why his base stays loyal, and the entire political establishment hates him. The only way Trump can lose is by playing politics.

[txnativegop]

"One of the enduring mysteries of the Trump era so far is how the president maintains the steadfast loyalty of many of the Republican Party’s key constituent groups despite the fact that his presidency has been a long series of blunders, bumbles, pratfalls and screw-ups, all against a backdrop of White House chaos and naked corruption. Ummm . . . because none of these things are true, perhaps? I sense a dis-associative state in this libs near future. LOL

[tbw2]

I will admit Trump was not my first through fifth choice in the primaries. However, Clinton was absolutely worse, so I held my nose and voted for him.
Why do I support him 80%+ now?

* rolling back regulations like Title IX rape tribunals in colleges and transgender BS in businesses backed by the State
* TRYING to reduce immigration on all fronts
* one good Supreme Court appointment that affects every decision on the docket
* repealing a lot of the environmental rules strangling businesses
* siding with cops over violent thugs like BLM
* standing up to the liberal bullies whether CNN or college aged protestors; if Clinton were in power, they’d be backed by the national government, not just a Berkley, Chicago and San Jose.
That alone was reason enough to have voted for him.
* pushing back on treaties from trade deals to the Iran deal that are bad for us and/or the world

He’s correcting a lot of liberal mistakes. Hence my far greater support now than I had a year ago.

[mountainfolk]

The Republican Party is hanging by a thread with me. The past months since Pres Trump has taken over the reigns of govt, the congress has been obstructing him and refusing to uphold their pre election promises to the voters. If this year finishes without more signs of life and support for Pres Trump from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and their fellow members of congress, I think 2018 will see a number of them replaced with honest promise keepers who will respect and support Pres Trump.

[sparklite2]

What a surprise! I had expected that this
column was written by Thomas Oliphant.
He was/is a master of smuggled premises and
unsubstantiated hooey.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I agree and I sure hope so! I think the scales have fallen from many eyes.

[Nifster]

Why not work harder on getting rid of the Alaskan RaiNOs?

[Jumper]

Dental Care and Eye Care... If they hadn’t screwed everybody (period) it could have been a very popular program — they just couldn’t SEE well enough to put TEETH in the ACA.

[adorno]

Trump is willing to do things that are politically foolhardy in order to satisfy his base voters, no matter how limited a portion of the electorate they make up.

There it is again. The allegation that Trump didn't win the election because he didn't win the popular vote.

To liberals, Hillary should be "their" winner on a "hypothetical" election system.

The dimwitted liberals fail to acknowledge, or refuse to acknowledge that the election of the president has been set up the way it is from the beginning. IOW, it's not about the popular vote, and it's about the consensus of electoral college votes, which has worked wonderfully for way over 2 centuries.

It the liberals' hypothetical election system were to have been the preferred way of electing a president, then, chances are that the country would have turned out completely different from what it currently is, and the U.S. would not be composed of 50 states and would only be composed of those states that believed in the popular vote system, which would have been perhaps less than half of the 50 that now compose the union.

And, liberals are also not smart enough to realize that, if the presidency was determined via the popular vote, that the whole election system would be completely different from the current system, and campaigning would have been nationwide efforts and no state would ever have been taken for granted, as many are today. IOW, it's conceivable that NY and California and Illinois and Massachussetts and many other "reliable liberal" states, would not have turned out "liberal", and might have ended up red or "purple". There is no telling what would have occurred with a completely different method for electing presidents. Hypothetical systems are no way to draw any kind of analysis, one way or the other.

Liberals are good at fake news, and lately at "hypothetical" or fake presidential wins.