Jump to content
Tywin et al.

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

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Hell, I can easily imagine a scenario where a candidate like Warren wins NH and then MA on Super Tuesday and still is more or less dead in the water.  Or Booker winning SC and AL but nothing else. 

But I think, depending on who the other candidates are remaining at the time, that may be enough to last at least through the end of March. If the other candidates are Biden, Booker, and Klobuchar, I think a Warren that only won NH and MA would have enough of a lane as being more liberal than them. Likewise for a Booker that only won SC and AL if the other candidates are Warren, Sanders, and Harris.

The problem is, it's been so long since there's been a Democratic primary with this many competitive candidates this early that we don't know how things will shake out. In 2004 Kerry basically had things wrapped up by mid-February with most candidates dropping out quickly after NH and Edwards never becoming a threat. On the other hand, in 1992, Harkin won IA, Tsongas won NH, Brown won ME, and Kerrey won SD. Clinton only won GA on Super Tuesday, with Harkin, Tsongas, and Brown splitting the rest. The immediate races after Super Tuesday suggested a four-candidate race that would last a while, but Clinton got a huge boost when all the southern states voted on the second super Tuesday and he became an enormous frontrunner. However, there's no similar geographic clustering in 2020, so if the early states split the way they did in 1992, things could on for quite a while. Or not; 1992 was a while ago after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Fuck me? Fuck ME!?! I mean I wouldn't. But some people don't have standards. Can't be helped.

Pretend the Meuller report is going to matter. It's supposedly coming out soon or something according to the Fake News CNN alert I didn't read. You delusional bobble heads should get a solid 30 pages of frothing at the mouth out of that.

And the Saudi nuclear armament stuff was waaaaaay to brief. I think y'all should revisit that one.

We could always just drop our standards and speculate recklessly about the candidate’s personal lives. Here’s two to open the gate:

Swalwell with have his college sex tape leaked.

People will find out that Booker is asexual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Pretend the Meuller report is going to matter. It's supposedly coming out soon or something according to the Fake News CNN alert I didn't read. You delusional bobble heads should get a solid 30 pages of frothing at the mouth out of that.

Wait, so instead of speculating about the primaries we should speculate about the Mueller report?  The former is pretty much what political geeks speculate about, all the time.  The latter is something I don't get to involved with in terms of the tea leave reports, because there's just no basis to go off of.

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

And the Saudi nuclear armament stuff was waaaaaay to brief. I think y'all should revisit that one.

Totally cool talking about that.  Thing is, think everyone's in agreement on that one.  Even Cas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fez said:

The problem is, it's been so long since there's been a Democratic primary with this many competitive candidates this early that we don't know how things will shake out. In 2004 Kerry basically had things wrapped up by mid-February with most candidates dropping out quickly after NH and Edwards never becoming a threat.

The first sentence contradicts the second.  In 2004 there WERE many candidates throwing their hat in.  Obviously not this many, but it still got to the point that Wesley Clark though he had a chance.  That's actually pretty similar to the Rick Perry announcement in 2012.  Kerry did have things wrapped up early - in spite of the fact the field was very fluid before the primaries actually started.  That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We could always just drop our standards and speculate recklessly about the candidate’s personal lives. Here’s two to open the gate:

Swalwell with have his college sex tape leaked.

People will find out that Booker is asexual.  

Now I can get on board with this. 

Dance for me monkeys! DANCE!!!

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Wait, so instead of speculating about the primaries we should speculate about the Mueller report?  The former is pretty much what political geeks speculate about, all the time.  The latter is something I don't get to involved with in terms of the tea leave reports, because there's just no basis to go off of.

Totally cool talking about that.  Thing is, think everyone's in agreement on that one.  Even Cas!

I can't believe I wrote "to brief". I feel to ashamed to edit it now that you quoted me. 

I think I'm just gonna walk into the desert now and never come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The first sentence contradicts the second.  In 2004 there WERE many candidates throwing their hat in.  Obviously not this many, but it still got to the point that Wesley Clark though he had a chance.  That's actually pretty similar to the Rick Perry announcement in 2012.  Kerry did have things wrapped up early - in spite of the fact the field was very fluid before the primaries actually started.  That's my point.

2004 is 16 years ago, or will be by the time voting starts, I think that qualifies as "so long" when it comes to electoral politics. Were the electoral dynamics of the 1960 primaries relevant to 1976? I'd say not never much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Now I can get on board with this. 

Dance for me monkeys! DANCE!!!

I can't believe I wrote "to brief". I feel to ashamed to edit it now that you quoted me. 

I think I'm just gonna walk into the desert now and never come back.

WHATTHEFUCK!!!!

NO NO NO NO!!!

StupidFuckingPhone!

It was the phone! The fucking phone did it to ME! THE PHONE! IT WAS THE PHONE! 

I knew I was above such mortal shortcomings! A failure to edit, NOT a failure to communicate.

VINDICATION!!!!

A very select group of people understood when I used the wrong homophone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other awesome news, Russian trolling has already started targeting Harris and been attempting to divide Sanders/Harris voters. Largely along the lines of the prosecutorial record bullshit. 

(Russian bullshit is also targeting antivaxxers with big videos that result in people being scared, including a huge amount of Russian immigrants in the Southwest Washington area - which just had that nice outbreak of measles. Whoever predicted the future had a huge massive miss on the horribleness of social media reach)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

No one is asking the important question:  for the candidates who have not yet been assigned, who will spoof them on SNL?

Oooh... way more fun anyway.

So we have Larry David for Sanders, Kate McKinnon for Warren, and Jason Sudeikis coming back to play Biden.

Then I think Maya Rudolph, as mentioned, could be good for Harris, or maybe Leslie Jones, depending on the direction they go in spoofing her. Cicely Tyson for Tulsi Gabbard or Klobuchar and Kenan Thompson for Booker. Maybe Mikey Day for O'Rourke? I'm having trouble thinking of someone to play him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oooh... way more fun anyway.

So we have Larry David for Sanders, Kate McKinnon for Warren, and Jason Sudeikis coming back to play Biden.

Then I think Maya Rudolph, as mentioned, could be good for Harris, or maybe Leslie Jones, depending on the direction they go in spoofing her. Cicely Tyson for Tulsi Gabbard or Klobuchar and Kenan Thompson for Booker. Maybe Mikey Day for O'Rourke? I'm having trouble thinking of someone to play him.

Beck Bennett for O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In other awesome news, Russian trolling has already started targeting Harris and been attempting to divide Sanders/Harris voters. Largely along the lines of the prosecutorial record bullshit. 

(Russian bullshit is also targeting antivaxxers with big videos that result in people being scared, including a huge amount of Russian immigrants in the Southwest Washington area - which just had that nice outbreak of measles. Whoever predicted the future had a huge massive miss on the horribleness of social media reach)

Been saying for ages that social media will be the downfall of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oooh... way more fun anyway.

So we have Larry David for Sanders, Kate McKinnon for Warren, and Jason Sudeikis coming back to play Biden.

Then I think Maya Rudolph, as mentioned, could be good for Harris, or maybe Leslie Jones, depending on the direction they go in spoofing her. Cicely Tyson for Tulsi Gabbard or Klobuchar and Kenan Thompson for Booker. Maybe Mikey Day for O'Rourke? I'm having trouble thinking of someone to play him.

Would Mindy Kaling come in for Harris?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the article on disinformation campaigns.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018

In general, I'm going to start doing something this cycle I didn't before - which is simply promoting the candidate I want. As much as I am pissed at Sanders, berating him for his incessant idiocies isn't going to help things. Going in on the candidates I do like is going to be better, and will hopefully avoid the whataboutism that kills democrats from voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DMC said:

I think the objective is to avoid getting bogged down into a "they're gonna take away your insurance" attack.  Remain open to solutions and figure it out after you win.  This is literally what Obama did - the ACA ended up being a lot closer to Hillary's plan during the primaries than his "plan" at the time.

Or maybe Democrats should look to strike while the iron is hot. People are calling out for a better healthcare system and right now they can still remember that Republicans are demonstrably full of shit on the issue. If Republicans try that tactic again and scream “Death panels!!!!11!1!”, or government takeover or whatever else, Democrats can point out that Republicans said that the ACA was going to do all that too and it didn’t happen, nor was it a Socialist apocalypse that chased all the Christians out of America or stole all the money doctors make or whatever else they said about it.

All a presidential candidate would have to do is let Trump and other Republicans complain, then roll their eyes and say “We’ve heard this all before. You said it ten years ago and it wasn’t true then, just like it’s not true now. And what exactly was your plan again?”

Personally I think that plays a lot better than mouthing empty slogans and being caught looking like you don’t have any actual plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

 Personally I think that plays a lot better than mouthing empty slogans and being caught looking like you don’t have any actual plan.

Clinton had absurdly good plans, and no one cared. The media, the people, no one. They don't care about plans. They care about empty slogans and feeling good. 

I wish that were not the case, but it's demonstrably true that having real plans to get things done isn't what people want. They want the wall, and Mexico to pay for it. They want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great. They want Obama's no mandate instead of Clinton's mandate. They don't want to hear that coal is dying - they want to hear that coal is going to come back huge.

They might not GET that, but that's what they want to hear. 

Not that plans in this universe mattered. If you wanted plans, you'd go for the POTUS that would look at all the things they could do without a single law being passed or a single senate vote being made and campaigned on those. Castro said the first thing he'd do is sign an EO bringing the US back into the Paris Climate agreement - and that's the sort of thing that the president can do. Especially Democrats, who will almost certainly not be able to get a single law worth a damn passed since all of their proposals can't be done via reconciliation, and even if they remove the filibuster would require having the house and the senate and POTUS in line - something that doesn't look likely until 2022 at the earliest. 

So getting stuff done? We're talking about withdrawing or increasing war, enforcing or removing regulations, making broad trade changes, broad military changes, immigration policy changes. We aren't talking about changing healthcare, changing taxes, changing child care, changing minimum wage. Realistically none of those can be done. But since no one cares about what can be done, campaign on what people actually want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Been saying for ages that social media will be the downfall of society.

TV first.  TV first started it.  TV and the media.  Entertainment complex culture.

But! this, from CNN, about 2 hours ago -- Mueller wrapping it up:

https://deadline.com/2019/02/robert-mueller-report-donald-trump-finished-russia-attorney-general-cnn-1202561035/

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, have we discussed the outcome of Timbs v. Indiana?  (Link to Slate article, if you click the case name - mainly used it because no paywall).

This is actually huge.  9-0, explicit confirmation of incorporation of 8th Amendment and will hopefully start to check civil asset forfeiture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

BTW, have we discussed the outcome of Timbs v. Indiana?  (Link to Slate article, if you click the case name - mainly used it because no paywall).

This is actually huge.  9-0, explicit confirmation of incorporation of 8th Amendment and will hopefully start to check civil asset forfeiture.

Not before they get Manafort's, hopefully. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Not before they get Manafort's, hopefully. :) 

Well, actually, Federal Government was already restricted by the 8th Amendment.  But he has been convicted, so I believe he can still be fined proportionate to his crimes and be required to disgorge the proceeds of crimes as he has had his due process.  So that's all right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×