US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

Oh man, a Biden-Romney ticket. That would excite exactly 0 people (well, maybe 1 person, the writer of that fever-dream inspired article). I mean, I have already committed to voting for a progressive in the primaries and whatever lukewarm candidate the Democrats throw up in 2020, but this combination of bland and blander is really too milquetoast for me. I could go on, but I've run out of synonyms for boring.

That is unfair and untrue. Just think of the many children and grandchildren Mittens has. I'd wager that tank would be properly excited.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Oh man, a Biden-Romney ticket. That would excite exactly 0 people (well, maybe 1 person, the writer of that fever-dream inspired article). I mean, I have already committed to voting for a progressive in the primaries and whatever lukewarm candidate the Democrats throw up in 2020, but this combination of bland and blander is really too milquetoast for me. I could go on, but I've run out of synonyms for boring.

I feel like, if anything, articles like that serve to sabotage Biden.  Romney may be more popular with Democrats than Trump, but he is NOT popular.  If Biden wanted an "independent/republican" for a unity ticket (which I doubt), Romney would be a horrible choice.  Biden ran against Romney in 2012 and I've no doubt there are hundreds of clips of Biden talking about how unfit Romney is to be president. 

The only "unity ticket" that would even be possible would be an establishment/moderate Dem and a moderate Republican Governor, like Hogan or Baker.  I still think that would be a losing choice, but at least Hogan can say something like "Democrats in Maryland like me, so obviously you should consider it too". 

Regardless, nobody likes unity tickets except political writers.  They are really great for being everyone second choice, which is a recipe for no votes. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

I think that conventional wisdom comes from where Democrats need to win.  If the goal was to win the popular vote, I think that an inspirational firebrand would be what you want, and frankly I would expect him/her to crush Trump.  But such a candidate would be really great at juicing up votes from liberals and minorities, but there aren't enough of them in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/Minnesota/New Hampshire to win those states with them alone.  Could they potentially make up those votes elsewhere?  Maybe, but the path gets a LOT narrower.  If you lose those states, you could pick up AZ and FL and still lose the election.  Where else could you win?  GA?  I'd much rather try and compete for Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

[Paladin of Ice]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Some comedy. Ah, so all it will take is lawyers, guns, and money.

Biden Should Run on a Unity Ticket With Romney
It could totally work. Here’s how.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/11/biden-2020-running-mate-romney-222861

 

The author of this piece should get a nomination for hackiest hack of 2018.

Quote

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Nor I, considering Trump is pretty unpopular with independents, including in the key states in the Rust Belt, plus certain areas of the Midwest and Southwest, IIRC.

Seems more like a drastic overreaction to their own fears or playing to their own biases, ala those “Third Way” jerks who deigned to go among regular people with the goal of proving their thesis that nobody cares about political labels and just want to work together to solve problems right, found their ideas rejected time and again, then put out a report saying they were right all along complete with lots of back patting.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Because Biden still hasn't been the nominee before.  And yes, as you suggested, Biden is perceived to appeal more to the Obama-Trump voters whereas Kerry's public perception is pretty much cemented as a Massachusetts liberal.

He's best known as the guy not tough enough, who folded  without a murmur, to the rethugs in Florida back in 2004, after which we never heard from him again until he took over as Sec of State from Hillary -- and even then we didn't hear from him, his voice, like we'd heard Hillary's.

In the meantime AOC shows herself and her organization truly tough cookies.  Right now, the people who made her campaign organization have a campaign to take on both the governor and they mayor over the deal they made in secret with amazon -- disgraceful, disgusting, expensive in every way, from displacing people from their homes via eminent domain, to wear and tear on already endangered infrastructure, paying no taxes, etc.  NYers HATE this deal -- NYers who aren't the stock, share holders or on Wall Street, HATE it.  It's a big give-away at our expense.  Cuomo and de Blasio are both gob-smacked. They didn't think anybody would challenge their fait accompli.

 

[Trebla]

Michael Cohen is going to the pokey.

 

[Maithanet]

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

If recent history has taught us anything it's that waiting is basically never a good idea.  I do think electability will be a focal point though.  At least I hope so.

To get back to this, Warren is a prime example. I honestly think she could have won the primary and the general in 2016, but it’s looking like her moment passed her by. A few polls came out over the last couple of days and she is not performing well. It would seem that likely primary voters have already moved on from her, and I suspect she’ll be among the first “big names” to drop out.  

Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Biden doesn’t run. I think he just wants some attention and the opportunity to a potential king maker.

[Corvinus85]

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

Maybe someone will tell Trump that the COS position doesn't have to be filled, and he'll declare he doesn't need one anymore. Then Javanka will essentially do that role between them, but not officially. That'll work out greeeeaaat. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read pieces like this Politico article that the next chief of staff needs to get the endorsement of Javanka.  Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out the middleman and make Ivanka the Chief of Staff?  I mean, we already know that Ivanka and Kushner both went around the chief of staffs whenever they felt like it.  It's not like Ivanka has any official responsibility as a presidential advisor.  I don't think the anti-nepotism laws would affect Chief of Staff, since it's not a cabinet level position (could be wrong about that though). 

Is it just that Ivanka doesn't want the job? 

Honestly, Ivanka might be the only person on the planet that can tell Trump he’s wrong and make him believe it. He idolizes her in a not at all creepy way. As idiotic as it sounds, it might actually be a net positive. Plus she can just higher an assistant to do all the actual duties of the CoS that don’t pertain to telling the president the hard truths.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

33 minutes ago, Trebla said:

Michael Cohen is going to the pokey.

 

So is that a harsh or a lenient sentence? That's a serious question, as in I have no idea what he would've gotten without his cooperation, and whether that discount he received on his sentence was generous or in line with what was to be expected.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Leaving aside unity tickets, it also seems that the 'conventional wisdom' through this and a bunch of other articles appears to be coalescing around the notion that to beat Trump, we need a centrist at the top of the ticket to pick off some moderate Republicans/independents. I'm not convinced yet this is the route to take.

Maybe the best way is to have a firebrand at the top to jazz up the 'base' and drag along the rest of the party with them. After all, thats what happened with Trump in 16. Granted, the Democrats are different from the Republicans, but still...

Its hard to make comparisons across states, but I think a lot of this conventional wisdom comes from the fact that this past election the high-profile centrist candidates had more success than the high-profile base-exciting ones. Sinema and Rosen won, Evers and Whitmer won; Beto lost, Abrams and Gillium lost (Nelson did too, though by less than Gillium). This isn't a totally fair comparison since different states have varying degrees of openness to voting Democratic. Although at the same time, maybe any candidate would've done as well as Beto in Texas this year, we just don't know.

 

As for Biden, I'm now thinking he'd only run if it was coronation, and it clearly won't be a coronation. Apparently he hasn't sounded like a potential candidate in his recent speeches either; being really focused on specific topics of events (like cancer research) and not generally not making broader, politically-focused remarks. I think Sanders does run, but does significantly worse than a lot of people are expecting. I don't think Kerry or Warren run in the end.

I strongly suspect the nominee will be Beto, Harris, or Booker, or whichever one of the younger non-senate folks has a really strong stretch of viral speeches in Fall 2019 (Castro, Garcetti, Gabbard, etc.) 'cause there's almost certainly going to be one of those.

[Fez]

26 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So is that a harsh or a lenient sentence? That's a serious question, as in I have no idea what he would've gotten without his cooperation, and whether that discount he received on his sentence was generous or in line with what was to be expected.

Hard to say. I think some people thought he'd get less because of how much he cooperated with the Mueller investigation; but, as the SDNY made clear, he has not been cooperative on the taxi medallion-mob stuff. 

Also, worth noting, the judge agreed to recommend that Cohen serve at Otisville (the minimum security camp, not the medium security prison next to it), which is pretty widely considered the cushiest federal prison around and the go-to desired destination for white collar criminals. From a 2012 article on it:

Quote

 

The prison’s store doubles as a delicatessen, serving up such favorites as rib steak, gefilte fish, salmon, chorizo and smoked oysters.

It’s just a 90-minute drive for visitors from New York City, and it boasts boccie courts, horseshoe pits and enough room to play soccer.

Altman, who has spent time in six prisons since his 1989 conviction for running an interstate prostitution ring, said convicts could stay up until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights watching HBO, Showtime and Cinemax.

The low-security camp that’s connected with Otisville’s 1,200-inmate medium-security complex is exclusive too, housing only about 125 felons, two to a cell.

Memorial Day and the Fourth of July are celebrated with cookouts serving hamburgers, hot dogs, watermelon and potato salad.

“The food is right. The commissary is right. The officers don’t bother you. There are a lot of courses you can take. You had weights inside and outside, free weights and machines,” Altman said.

 

 

[Morpheus]

AMI (National Enquirer) reached a non-prosecution agreement  and have corroborated that the payment was made to influence the election

 

[Zorral]

53 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So is that a harsh or a lenient sentence? That's a serious question, as in I have no idea what he would've gotten without his cooperation, and whether that discount he received on his sentence was generous or in line with what was to be expected.

Many a person has gotten a harsher sentence than that for possession of a joint.  No gefilte fish or steak, or cushy bedrooms and non-interfering guards for them!

Slap on the wrist, barely, that's what this white collar guy working for a criminal family to play the election for potus got.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I strongly suspect the nominee will be Beto, Harris, or Booker, or whichever one of the younger non-senate folks has a really strong stretch of viral speeches in Fall 2019 (Castro, Garcetti, Gabbard, etc.) 'cause there's almost certainly going to be one of those.

I still don’t get the argument for Beto to be the nominee. Sure he was a great campaigner, but he lost. Cruz is a weak candidate and Beto ran in a wave year, so it’s not surprising that he over performed, and honestly, Democrats should do a lot better in Texas than they have over the last few decades. IMO Beto would better serve the party by becoming a member of leadership at the DNC. I think that’s where you can maximize his value.

But I do agree that it will probably be Harris or Booker in the end. They’ll likely perform the best on T.V.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still don’t get the argument for Beto to be the nominee. Sure he was a great campaigner, but he lost. Cruz is a weak candidate and Beto ran in a wave year, so it’s not surprising that he over performed, and honestly, Democrats should do a lot better in Texas than they have over the last few decades. IMO Beto would better serve the party by becoming a member of leadership at the DNC. I think that’s where you can maximize his value.

But I do agree that it will probably be Harris or Booker in the end. They’ll likely perform the best on T.V.

I wouldn't mind letting the loser be Veep.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But I do agree that it will probably be Harris or Booker in the end. They’ll likely perform the best on T.V.

CAn somebody explain me this crush on Corey Booker of all people? Policywise he is really not that awesome, is he?

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still don’t get the argument for Beto to be the nominee. Sure he was a great campaigner, but he lost. Cruz is a weak candidate and Beto ran in a wave year, so it’s not surprising that he over performed, and honestly, Democrats should do a lot better in Texas than they have over the last few decades. IMO Beto would better serve the party by becoming a member of leadership at the DNC. I think that’s where you can maximize his value.

But I do agree that it will probably be Harris or Booker in the end. They’ll likely perform the best on T.V.

The argument for Beto is that he's young, charismatic, and an outsider, and has centrist appeal while also appealing to a broad group of the coalitions in the Democratic party. The big problem is that he is a loser and doesn't have a lot of experience, but when going against Trump that might not be a big deal. 

The other calculus is that in order to overvote Trump you need to do one of two things - either make voters who voted for Trump defect, or make more of a turnout in the places where Trump wins. A centrist makes the former more likely, but only for certain people (Rust belt voters, other independents, etc). The latter requires charisma and energy for certain populations, and that's where Beto is doing well.