Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like Biden's problem is that as the field winnows, he becomes a less compelling candidate.  Being a party insider with great name recognition and plenty of funding will help you survive the first couple of rounds, yes.  But if after Super Tuesday, the field is reduced to say Biden+ Harris + Beto or Harris + Sanders or Warren + Booker, how does Biden convince people that he's the choice?  He's an old white man in a party that is angry about old white men making decisions.  He has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth.  He isn't particularly charismatic, and has relatively few die hard supporters.  I think that unless he gets really lucky where the remaining 2-3 other candidates really screw up somehow, he's the one that's going to get dropped. 

He's definitely not a shoe-in. I think his main argument, and I don't know if it will be convincing (or even if it is correct) is that, as a moderate, old, white, man, he's the one best positioned to beat Trump. Because that's the kind of person that Obama-Trump voters would be most comfortable coming back to the Democratic party for and because, as a moderate, he's the one the newly flipped suburbs would be most comfortable voting for. Polling has already shown that electability is the biggest concern for primary voters this cycle, and if Biden can tap into that, he's got a huge advantage.

Of course, there's also lots of arguments to make that he's not the most electable, that he has a huge amount of baggage that'll drag him down. I think some of the other candidates are in a better position than others to make those arguments, so it'll depend on who's left standing. But you've got still be standing in the final rounds to have any chance and Biden will still be standing then; if he runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination.  She has a strong resume, she's youngish, she consistently walks the line between being tough and being charismatic, and she showed political acumen by not shrinking away from her record as a prosecutor.  I've no doubt a few people on the left won't like a prosecutor being the nominee, but I doubt it could possibly dampen enthusiasm for her in the general.  The only real downside I'm seeing is that she's from California, and while that isn't ideal, it's hardly a crippling deficiency.  She's had to navigate some bruising Democratic primaries in the past too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Contra Sgt. Shultz:

Anyone who says they don’t see color isn’t worth listening to. They literally deny people their lived experiences by doing so.

Also, to pick up on a theme from another thread, why is this guy not getting punished for being the El Chapo of legal drugs? Oh wait, society, and its inconsistencies on what counts as a drug….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

And there aren't enough potential "pocket Democratic billionaires" to keep afloat candidates who lack popular support, unlike on the Republican side, which kept a lot of names in 2016 going for longer than they should have.

Oh yes there is. Four of the five richest Americans are Democrats, as are a majority of the ten richest Americans. They’re just cheap, which is why I support Maher’s crusade to shame these people.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh yes there is. Four of the five richest Americans are Democrats, as are a majority of the ten richest Americans. They’re just cheap, which is why I support Maher’s crusade to shame these people.   

That's my point though. Sure there are Democratic billionaires, but they don't get involved in politics the way Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langon, the Mercers, the Kochs, etc. all do. Each of them had their own favorite 2016 candidate (some also had their own favorite 2012 candidate) who they bankrolled long past the point of viability among the GOP primary electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination.  She has a strong resume, she's youngish, she consistently walks the line between being tough and being charismatic, and she showed political acumen by not shrinking away from her record as a prosecutor.  I've no doubt a few people on the left won't like a prosecutor being the nominee, but I doubt it could possibly dampen enthusiasm for her in the general.  The only real downside I'm seeing is that she's from California, and while that isn't ideal, it's hardly a crippling deficiency.  She's had to navigate some bruising Democratic primaries in the past too. 

I’ve been saying for months that she should be the obvious favorite. She literally checks off all the boxes one should want in a dynamic candidate. She’s smart, articulate, telegenic, quick on her feet, appeals to numerous demographics, and probably most importantly, she’s new. I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor? She’s clearly demonstrated that this is an asset of hers during committee hearings. Also, I find it odd that she gets knocked for this when nobody seems to mention it as a negative for Klobuchar.

Also, being from California isn’t a bad thing. She’s fund raising like crazy because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor?

Perhaps they should be reminded that a liberal icon, or used to be a liberal icon,  at least, that was a former prosecutor was Earl Warren. He was also a Republican, back in the day, when there was somewhat sane ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's my point though. Sure there are Democratic billionaires, but they don't get involved in politics the way Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langon, the Mercers, the Kochs, etc. all do. Each of them had their own favorite 2016 candidate (some also had their own favorite 2012 candidate) who they bankrolled long past the point of viability among the GOP primary electorate.

And that’s why they need to be shamed and/or encouraged to put some skin in the game. It’s embarrassing how little they give. I’m sure they’re afraid that it will hurt their businesses, but that doesn’t stop the conservatives from doing so and there’s data to give them to prove that it won’t. Take the NFL for example. They feared Kaepernick’s kneeling would hurt their bottom line so they blackballed him, but the data shows that while viewership went down, profits went up during that infamous season. Using your wealth to take principle stand is something people on the left should be encouraged to do, and even if it hurts them financially, so what? Oh no, I’m only worth $35 billion now, it’s so painful to know that I used to be worth $38 billion. Give me a break….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor?

I think I've said this before, but I think Trump won the one one one debates with Hillary. She didn't play to her strength (competency) and he did play to his. She basically just keep repeating 'can you believe this guy?' when IMO she should have been demonstrating that she knew some shit about policy and Trump abso-fucking-lutely did not. So yeah, Harris would be stellar in a one on one with Trump and I would pay to see that smack-down.

That's not an endorsement, it's way too early for me to get caught up in this shit except for general impressions. Why the fuck don't we limit campaign season in this country? We're going to have people campaigning for two years instead of doing their actual jobs. 

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. There is more talk and speculation about Bernie, Biden and Beto than a candidate who has actually declared. Gillibrand has dropped off the map too as far as coverage and talk as far as I can tell. I know there's no obligation to give equal coverage, but I'm uncomfortable with the Kingmaker status they have. It's not new, I know, but it seems more pronounced this time, maybe because I'm paying more attention or maybe because there are so many candidates or who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps they should be reminded that a liberal icon, or used to be a liberal icon,  at least, that was a former prosecutor was Earl Warren. He was also a Republican, back in the day, when there was somewhat sane ones.

I think you’re asking a lot of the average person. Like I’ve said before, the polling on if people know what the three branches of government are is pretty atrocious. Most people won’t even have heard Earl Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I think you’re asking a lot of the average person. Like I’ve said before, the polling on if people know what the three branches of government are is pretty atrocious. Most people won’t even have heard Earl Warren.

You're probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

That's not an endorsement, it's way too early for me to get caught up in this shit except for general impressions. Why the fuck don't we limit campaign season in this country? We're going to have people campaigning for two years instead of doing their actual jobs. 

You’re preaching to the choir here. I’d prefer a six to eight week primary followed by an eight to twelve week general, or something to the effect.

Quote

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. There is more talk and speculation about Bernie, Biden and Beto than a candidate who has actually declared. Gillibrand has dropped off the map too as far as coverage and talk as far as I can tell. I know there's no obligation to give equal coverage, but I'm uncomfortable with the Kingmaker status they have. It's not new, I know, but it seems more pronounced this time, maybe because I'm paying more attention or maybe because there are so many candidates or who knows.

Gabbard and Gillibrand don’t have paths to victory at the moment, so they’re less likely to get free airtime. It’s the nature of the beast, fair or not. Plus they’re also hurt by the fact that they don’t have anything that distinguishes them from the crowd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Rep. Ilhan Omar Spars With Elliott Abrams Over His Links To War Crimes
The Minnesota Democrat’s tangle with Trump’s new special envoy to Venezuela shed light on Abrams’ controversial career.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ilhan-omar-elliot-abrams-clash-war-crimes_n_5c6480e6e4b0018ed01b5501

I see that Elliot Abrams is just as willing now as he was 30 years ago to mislead and lie to Congress. I'm happy to see Omar go after him about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

 

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. 

She sucks, the media knows it, and her campaign is a shambles. She ain't going anywhere other than RT-financed Jill Stein limbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Mitch McConnell, Trump will sign the budget deal and the declare a national emergency.

Quote

McConnell:  I've just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump, and he would, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he's prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to prepare -- I'm going to support the national emergency declaration.

McConnell is like the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

According to Mitch McConnell, Trump will sign the budget deal and the declare a national emergency.

McConnell is like the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. 

Shit just got interesting.  If Trump actually ends up doing this, House Dems will pass a joint resolution rescinding the state of emergency, which will then be sent to the Senate. This joint resolution is privileged; old Myrtle the Turtle cannot block it.  So he's saying he will be whipping Republicans for a vote against the joint resolution. It is by no means clear if Senate Republicans have enough votes to block the resolution. 

If it passes both chambers, Trump will have to veto it, sending it back to Congress to see if they can override (they probably can't). But this will be tied up in legal action for years.  The main takeaway from this is that is forces Senate Republicans into a corner; whether to vote to uphold an extremely unpopular declaration, which gives precedent for future Democratic presidents to take advantage of, or whether to go against Trump and the base. He basically handed them a bomb and is asking them to blow up Republican divisions in the Senate so that he can save face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Shit just got interesting.  If Trump actually ends up doing this, House Dems will pass a joint resolution rescinding the state of emergency, which will then be sent to the Senate. This joint resolution is privileged; old Myrtle the Turtle cannot block it.  So he's saying he will be whipping Republicans for a vote against the joint resolution. It is by no means clear if Senate Republicans have enough votes to block the resolution. 

If it passes both chambers, Trump will have to veto it, sending it back to Congress to see if they can override (they probably can't). But this will be tied up in legal action for years.  The main takeaway from this is that is forces Senate Republicans into a corner; whether to vote to uphold an extremely unpopular declaration, which gives precedent for future Democratic presidents to take advantage of, or whether to go against Trump and the base. He basically handed them a bomb and is asking them to blow up Republican divisions in the Senate so that he can save face.

It's a mess all right.  I really thought people had talked Trump down from this cliff, and instead he was just going to use executive actions to move money to the wall.  Which was itself legally questionable, but far less scary for Senate Republicans.  McConnell agreeing to support the Emergency is itself a big deal.  Although with him looking at a possible primary challenge in 2020 he can't exactly afford to have a showdown with Trump at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gabbard and Gillibrand don’t have paths to victory at the moment, so they’re less likely to get free airtime. It’s the nature of the beast, fair or not. Plus they’re also hurt by the fact that they don’t have anything that distinguishes them from the crowd.  

 

40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She sucks, the media knows it, and her campaign is a shambles. She ain't going anywhere other than RT-financed Jill Stein limbo.

I'm not disputing either of those things. I'm still a bit bothered seeing pundits fall over themselves to interview the 'Big Names' and hope and pray Beto runs because he's cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...