Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

Somewhat apropos of the shooting in New Zealand but something I've definitely thought about with US politics:

Can anyone ever envision a candidate running on going after domestic right wing terrorists?  I don't mean as, like, the hallmark of their campaign.  But actually calling it out on the campaign trail, talking about how one is statistically more likely to be killed by one of these than an Islamic terrorist, etc...

Given, there's some crossover here with the gun issue, but Dem candidates do not couch it in terms of terrorism.  

Obviously a lot of the right would go absolutely apeshit.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I have to say that I am totally blown away by this 420-0 vote in the House to make the Mueller report public.  Utterly baffling.  Why would so many GOPers do this?  I would think that this would be perceived as an anti-Trump vote even if it's quite broadly popular with the public.  

ICould it be they doubt the report’s findings  will significantly hurt Trump’s ratings? Or think voting know will simply peak the public’s interest in the report? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

But actually calling it out on the campaign trail, talking about how one is statistically more likely to be killed by one of these than an Islamic terrorist, etc...

I hope every Democratic candidate will point out that fact.

In terms of your general point, there's a veritable feast of ways I could use the GOP's language to gin up Democratic policies.  Why don't they do it?  Some have, to an extent.  Still not enough.  They seem to be scared of an attack, which is tactically wrong.  The attack should help, and so should the backlash really, if you've marketed the policy correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is. What exactly could be the benefit he could see in doing this?

Late?  Isn't the first primary of note most of a year away? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Late?  Isn't the first primary of note most of a year away? 

After 16 candidates have been announced? He is kinda late to the party. Not at the point where people are just starting to clean up but the punch bowl’s a quarter empty, and a lot of the good snacks have been eaten already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto is running because it's not like he's got anything else going on right now.  He's out of Congress and doesn't appear to have a real job at the moment, so why not?  Probably will help with his name recognition for his next campaign.

I hadn't looked into Beto's background until now, and his resume looks really thin to me.  It's really hard for me to imagine voting for him in the primaries, given his relative lack of experience, regardless of how likable and well spoken he is.  If he loses, I don't think it'll be because he entered too late. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Beto is running because it's not like he's got anything else going on right now.  He's out of Congress and doesn't appear to have a real job at the moment, so why not? 

This is a very good point.  It's actually easier for him to lose at president than lose at another statewide office, which he probably would.  I just don't see much future there.  He should just go back to the House and tell them how to raise money in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is. What exactly could be the benefit he could see in doing this?

You misunderstand me, I guess I really wasn’t very clear.

It’s 20 months from the election, and he’s announced too late? Holy shit, guys.

The US election system is grotesque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure half the current democratic contenders for POTUS will drop out of the race before the primaries.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is interesting:

Quote

After months of silence, the Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the shooting.

The court's narrow decision, overturning a lower court judge, rules that Remington can be sued over its marketing practices under a Connecticut state law, despite protections offered to gun manufacturers by federal law. The ruling sends the case back to the lower court.

The suit is a high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountability. It centers on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law that shields manufacturers and retailers from civil liability in lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence. An eventual ruling against Remington could establish legal precedent, opening doors for more lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and expose the company's communications about its marketing plans

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703439924/lawsuit-by-sandy-hook-victims-against-gun-manufacturer-allowed-to-move-forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

You misunderstand me, I guess I really wasn’t very clear.

It’s 20 months from the election, and he’s announced too late? Holy shit, guys.

The US election system is grotesque.

Individuals considering a run at the presidency begin their shadow campaigns the day after the last presidential elected, assuming the victor is the president elect of the other party or a president of their own party winning a second term. It’s why one should roll their eyes at people who talk about considering a run. They’re already running, just unofficially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As to this hypothetical Lokisnow proposed in the last iteration of the thread:

Quote

So if trump loses on November 3 2020 and announces four appointments to the Supreme Court on November 4, and McConnell immediately schedules floor votes for them for December 28, 29, 30, and 31. And they are all then confirmed, would you say that democrats responding with their own appointments would be something that cannot be done because it would only make a toxic situation worse?

I'd just like to point out the above scenario is actually nigh on to impossible for 2020 because although the President and Senate decide who fills a judicial position by themselves, the creation of the judicial position itself requires the agreement of the House. The Senate cannot arbitrarily increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court by itself. And there is no way the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is going to agree on November 4 2020 to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to allow Trump to pull this off.

(At least the above is what I as a non-lawyer gather from Googling this morning.)

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


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

Individuals considering a run at the presidency begin their shadow campaigns the day after the last presidential elected, assuming the victor is the president elect of the other party or a president of their own party winning a second term. It’s why one should roll their eyes at people who talk about considering a run. They’re already running, just unofficially.

While this is true, the Democratic candidates have announced ridiculously early this year. During the 2016 cycle most candidates announced between March and June of 2015.

Kicking it off in January is just absurd and I doubt that O'Rourke's chances will be materially impacted by waiting until March to announce, simply because I suspect that the average Democratic primary voter probably isn't paying all that much attention to elections that won't happen for at least 10 months to a year from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

You misunderstand me, I guess I really wasn’t very clear.

It’s 20 months from the election, and he’s announced too late? Holy shit, guys.

The US election system is grotesque.

Yes, it is. Now, I personally think Beto didn't announce too late, because he already has a large, established donor, volunteer, and staffer networks. But I agree that for most candidates this would be too late, simply because everyone else already in the race has grabbed all the top campaign staff talent and convinced donors and volunteers to support them. If everyone waited until later, that would be fine too; but if some folks are going to jump in early, almost everyone else needs to as well.

Only someone like Biden or Michelle Obama (not that she's going to run) is a big enough name that they could afford to wait this much longer after everyone else has jumped in. Beto I think is fine at this point, but if he waited any longer he'd be in trouble; and folks like Steve Bullock, who haven't jumped in yet, are almost certainly screwed.

One thing that may harm Beto though is that his campaign HQ is in El Paso, and there's already been word that some of the top remaining campaign staffers in free agency don't want to relocate to El Paso for the next 1-2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Individuals considering a run at the presidency begin their shadow campaigns the day after the last presidential elected, assuming the victor is the president elect of the other party or a president of their own party winning a second term. It’s why one should roll their eyes at people who talk about considering a run. They’re already running, just unofficially.

Yes, even I know that. And talk about Beto began then. If everyone knows he could run, how can this week be too late? That was the proposition and attitude I find weird.

Biden hasn’t announced yet. When he announces, will it be too late?

eta: Fez, I see your point. CNN commentators have also made it, but I didn’t think it applied to Beto, as you say.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


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

 

One thing that may harm Beto though is that his campaign HQ is in El Paso, and there's already been word that some of the top remaining campaign staffers in free agency don't want to relocate to El Paso for the next 1-2 years.

If I owned a place in El Paso and hell, I'd rent out the El Paso property.

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yes, even I know that. And talk about Beto began then. If everyone knows he could run, how can this week be too late? That was the proposition and attitude I find weird.

Biden hasn’t announced yet. When he announces, will it be too late?

Biden has such big built in advantages (just don't talk about the disadvantages!) that he plays by his own rules.

Share this post


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

While this is true, the Democratic candidates have announced ridiculously early this year. During the 2016 cycle most candidates announced between March and June of 2015.

Kicking it off in January is just absurd and I doubt that O'Rourke's chances will be materially impacted by waiting until March to announce, simply because I suspect that the average Democratic primary voter probably isn't paying all that much attention to elections that won't happen for at least 10 months to a year from now.

The cycle moved up a few months because Democrats hate Trump and they think he’s weak. It’s really not that shocking, and gaining an early start on fund raising and staffing is a smart move these days, despite my hatred of long campaign cycles.

But I think you’re wrong about Beto. A lot of active primary voters already know who their first choice is, and while they might like Beto, the initial die is already cast for them. I know I’m on team Harris and I’ll be there until she is no longer a viable candidate.

53 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yes, even I know that. And talk about Beto began then. If everyone knows he could run, how can this week be too late? That was the proposition and attitude I find weird.

Biden hasn’t announced yet. When he announces, will it be too late?

eta: Fez, I see your point. CNN commentators have also made it, but I didn’t think it applied to Beto, as you say.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in the wake of the NZ terrorist massacre, are we just going to ignore that Trump said the military, police and bikers are on his side and that he not so subtly implied that they could commit acts of violence in his name if he instructed them to do so….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The cycle moved up a few months because Democrats hate Trump and they think he’s weak. It’s really not that shocking, and gaining an early start on fund raising and staffing is a smart move these days, despite my hatred of long campaign cycles.

But I think you’re wrong about Beto. A lot of active primary voters already know who their first choice is, and while they might like Beto, the initial die is already cast for them. I know I’m on team Harris and I’ll be there until she is no longer a viable candidate.

I will grant you that the issue of staffers may become an issue with O'Rourke delaying his announcement, but I don't know enough about that side of the equation to speak intelligently on the subject.

As far as fundraising goes, I don't think he'll have an issue as he already has a massive (and very recent) donor list that he used to nearly triple ($80m vs. $32m) the amount of donations from individual contributions to Democratic candidates compared to the 2nd largest haul during the 2018 Senate elections (McCaskill).

And I think you kind of proved my point regarding already locked-in primary voters. I think it's fairly safe to say that nearly everyone who posts in the U.S. politics thread would be considered extreme outliers when compared to the average Democratic primary voter in regards to their knowledge of each candidate's policies and having already made a choice about which candidate to back. I'd surmise that the vast majority of primary voters couldn't name more than 4 or 5 candidates who have announced, and they probably won't even start making up their minds until after a couple rounds of debates.

There is probably a certain percentage of voters who are already locked in for Biden and Sanders, and Warren to a lesser extent, to the point where hardly anything could change their minds, but I doubt any of the rest of the candidates have a significant level of actual baked-in support (outside of the political junkies who post in this thread). At this early stage, I think numbers are going to be extremely fluid up to and after the debate season and leading up to the Iowa caucus next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'd just like to point out the above scenario is actually nigh on to impossible for 2020 because although the President and Senate decide who fills a judicial position by themselves, the creation of the judicial position itself requires the agreement of the House. The Senate cannot arbitrarily increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court by itself. And there is no way the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is going to agree on November 4 2020 to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to allow Trump to pull this off.

This is all true, I just didn't see the scenario @lokisnow laid out that you're responding to.  It actually sounds strikingly like the scenario that led us to Marbury v Madison.  Which is pretty interesting, especially if loki didn't have that in mind.

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

While this is true, the Democratic candidates have announced ridiculously early this year. During the 2016 cycle most candidates announced between March and June of 2015.

Kicking it off in January is just absurd and I doubt that O'Rourke's chances will be materially impacted by waiting until March to announce, simply because I suspect that the average Democratic primary voter probably isn't paying all that much attention to elections that won't happen for at least 10 months to a year from now.

The way to think about this is not a specific data - and especially not a range of dates that compare to previous elections and campaigns.  Rather, the key is when and how your opponents are running.  And the fact is Beto's competition was able to get a leg up on him simply because, I don't know, he wanted to live tweet about his road trip.  This IS fundamentally different than Biden, because people are actually waiting for Biden.  No one, or at least not many and probably no one outside of Texas, was waiting for Beto.

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Beto I think is fine at this point,

I think it's very clear he squandered an opportunity.  Disregarding the staff and financial resources he certainly made more difficult for himself, if he announced back when he was all hyped up he could be the clear #3 right now and build from there.  Now he's just another guy and the political elite (media and otherwise) are wondering why he's running in the first place.  Literally, I've seen like three articles on that.  You don't get those articles for any other candidate, even though the question for almost all of them is exactly as fair.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The cycle moved up a few months because Democrats hate Trump and they think he’s weak.

No, the cycle moved up because the primary is wide open, and because cycles continue to move up.  There's no stopping it, it's like trying to punch an ocean.

Share this post


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

×