US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Warren, however, is willing to get rid of the filibuster and has a lot of plans on how to get what she wants done using EOs. Sanders...does not. 

Why does this matter?  This seems based on the premise that getting rid of the filibuster is an inherently good thing.  I certainly don't think so, and there's plenty of institutional changes I'd make before that.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How many were dems? How many were running against men? Partisanship is absolutely going to trump sexism in most places, mind you, but just randomly selecting this as an absolute value when we're talking about even or close-to-even races is a bit disingenuous.

I don't know how many statewide executives or legislators were Dems.  As for US Congress, governors, and mayors, you can look that up pretty quickly.  Generally well over a majority of female officeholders are gonna be Democrats.  As for who they're running against, who cares?  Hell, a female v. female general election only serves to reinforce how much that district/state is willing to vote for a female politician.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And 3 were Republicans in heavy Republican states.

So?  It still is direct evidence voters in red states are increasingly willing to vote for (or nominate) female executives at a statewide level.  I think Whitmer in Michigan also helps serves my argument (in addition to Kelly), considering the importance of the state - and the fact Granholm was there for two terms recently as well.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Until we hit a massively unpopular war AND a massive economic collapse, we probably wouldn't have elected Obama either. 

Fair point on Obama seizing the moment, but we have no idea of knowing what would've happened if Lehman Brothers crashed two months later than it did.  The Dems still nominated him beforehand, and it looked like he had a slight advantage against McCain at the time before it became a slam dunk after "the fundamentals of our economy" gaffe.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders outpolled Clinton in 2016 in heads to heads. He said this repeatedly as well. 

And low-information voters disfavor women, in general. 

No he didn't - not at this stage of the cycle.  And not to any significant degree than the general electorate.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

though most people are on the 'but not that one', and I don't see how people are going to go around that this time either.

That first link (the 538 article) is about the calculous of Democratic primary voters, it's entirely disingenuous to present it as evidence for the general election.  Can't access the second link right now.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

HI!  I'm one of those moderates!  Sanders is REALLY hard for me.  (1) I really dislike him on a personal level.  Viscerally.  I guess he's better than the Orange One, but that's because he's the devil I DON'T know!  (2)  I disagree with him on many, many, many, things and think he is just the left's answer to demagoguery.  I don't like demagogues as a principled matter.  Note that I would enthusiastically vote for Warren (despite disagreeing with her on basically all the same things).  She doesn't inspire the same reaction.  Would I pull the lever for Sanders if it came to it?  I honestly don't know.  I'm not an historic Democrat.  I'm a never-Trumper and non-Republican.  That's a difference.  I will NOT vote for Trump, but Sanders?  I dunno.  Easier for me to be ambivalent sitting in NY.  Would be a totally different calculus if I lived, e.g., in Virginia.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

You're probably right but if Bernie does run and rallies the millennials, there is still the slim hope of a bunch of progressive AOC types sweeping congress.

And there's equal parts fear that he'd cause a lot of competitive seats to cease to be competitive. Do not forget, while defeating Trump is the main goal, the overall goal this year is to win as many seats as possible at every level of state and federal government (as opposed to mainly targeting the Senate, per se). It's a redistricting election, and 2010 was a harsh lesson. You don't want to get too cute with it this cycle. Biden is boring, but he might be the safest pick.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Warren, however, is willing to get rid of the filibuster and has a lot of plans on how to get what she wants done using EOs. Sanders...does not. 

And if we don't retake the Senate? 

I think if you're stuck deciding between the two the best argument for one over the other is that Warren will tact more to the middle in the general and isn't as entrenched in her positions. Bernie will be Bernie the entire time and that would likely spell disaster. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, we can quibble, but at this point, I'd argue the only progressive in this race is Sanders. 

Wow.  I suppose it is convenient to narrow one's definition of progressive to only your preferred candidate, but what a ludicrous statement.

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Cue a whole bunch of lawsuits about the constitutionality of amendment sunset provisions and the ability of states to withdraw their ratifications of amendments before they become part of the Constitution.

While I'm obviously all for the ERA, I don't get why the legal argument wouldn't be cut and dry.  The amendment passed by Congress gave until 1982 to ratify it.  Obviously that didn't happen.  Gotta say, if I was on the bench, I would deny this - along with the recent Nevada and Illinois ratifications - so as to not set a precedent.  Ratifying an amendment from 40 to 50 years ago is plainly not what the constitution had in mind.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And if we don't retake the Senate? 

Then it becomes whether or not some moderate Republicans will go with plans or just assume nothing will get done. Also assume absolutely no judicial nominations and proceed accordingly. I'm not sure what the point is here, other than there is zero chance of any of Sanders policy goals going through without removing the filibuster. 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I think if you're stuck deciding between the two the best argument for one over the other is that Warren will tact more to the middle in the general and isn't as entrenched in her positions. Bernie will be Bernie the entire time and that would likely spell disaster. 

I think warren is much more willing to accept good instead of perfect. I dont think that is her going to the middle so much as willing to get what she can while promoting getting more. I also think Warren is lightyears ahead of understanding how to establish and use the state tools to further her agendas in a far more consequential and permanent way; sanders appears to basically care solely about passing laws and little else, and that has been his career arc.

This is what I mean by governance - it's not just lack of general experience as an executive, its understanding how the rest of the system works and what it can do. 

Not that I think Warren has a shot, mind you. But she has been far more competent than Sanders in a shorter time.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

But its a long way to the election, especially for senate races; lots of time for unexpected things to happen. For instance, right now Ernst in Iowa looks pretty safe with how that state has shifted; but if agriculture is still in a slump, or gets worse, things could dramatically snap back.

I think our best hope at this point in time is a political grenade going off in the Senate. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not that I think Warren has a shot, mind you. But she has been far more competent than Sanders in a shorter time.

I don't really disagree with what I snipped, just that I think a lot of people who are fans of them really think they can pass sweeping legislation. There's next to no chance of that happening, even without the filibuster ( and I really don't know if nuking it is the way to go depending on what can be done through reconciliation).

As to the above, I really have become resigned to a Biden nomination. If he wins IA and does well in NH it's probably over, though Bernie won't quit. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think our best hope at this point in time is a political grenade going off in the Senate. 

I think you can put the potential Senate pickups into 4 categories.  First, the gimmes:  Colorado and Arizona.  If the Dems don't win those there's a problem (outside of candidate scandal).  Second would be Collins in Maine.  That a seat the Dems should hold based on polarization, and they have a good candidate that's well funded.  Can that overcome incumbency?  Tough to say, true tossup.  Then, I'd put IA, KS, and NC in the "gettable but we'll see" category for now.  Get a better idea of which is more fruitful as election day approaches.  Finally, there's the long shots, which would be the Georgia seats, Jones in Alabama, and Turtle.

[Lollygag]

As an independent, I'm confused by how some of the terminology is used in Democrats' discussions. 

In a lot of places including this forum, I see "progressive" used interchangeably with "socialist". They overlap sometimes, but the way I see it, they aren't the same thing at all. 

There's also assumptions (I think?) as to what a socialist in the US entails. It seems to be a given that any socialism in the US is of the Canadian/European variety. But when I come across Bernie's cheering breadlines, honeymooning in USSR Moscow, cozying up to leftist authoritarians, and his hedging on people like Maduro, I'm not so sure. If one is a Canadian/European brand of socialist or at least someone who leans in that direction, why is there silence on Bernie's authoritarian leanings? Has he changed position? He was recently hedging on Maduro and it was disturbing. I don't doubt that Republicans will pull up anything and everything to make a Trump/Bernie choice drive me to alcoholism so it looks like a distinction that Democrats ignore at their peril. 

On Bernie not quitting even if he doesn't get the nomination, in 2016 he started to make me think of Mad Aerys going Bern it All! and I'm afraid that's not as much of an exaggeration as I'd like.
 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bernie's cheering breadlines, honeymooning in USSR Moscow, cozying up to leftist authoritarians

....As opposed to our current president's relationship with "USSR Moscow" and authoritarian regimes?  I am far from a Bernie apologist, but I don't know what this gripe is referring to, other than him having a different perspective than the neo-cons on Maduro.

[Lollygag]

Just now, DMC said:

....As opposed to our current president's relationship with "USSR Moscow" and authoritarian regimes?  I am far from a Bernie apologist, but I don't know what this gripe is referring to, other than him having a different perspective than the neo-cons on Maduro.

My question (what kind of socialism is being promoted) was hacked out and I get a whataboutism response....

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

My question (what kind of socialism is being promoted) was hacked out and I get a whataboutism response....

 

No, your question distinguished Bernie's brand of socialism from "the European/Canadian variety" by claiming it was distinct based on his "authoritarian leanings?"  That's literally how you distinguished it:

26 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It seems to be a given that any socialism in the US is of the Canadian/European variety. But when I come across Bernie's cheering breadlines, honeymooning in USSR Moscow, cozying up to leftist authoritarians, and his hedging on people like Maduro, I'm not so sure.

So, yes, I'm asking what you're talking about in terms of Bernie cozying up to authoritarians?  That's directly addressing your expressed concern/confusion about Bernie's socialism.  But I suppose instead of answering you can just dismiss with a buzzword.

[Zorral]

Listening to the NPR On Point before going out.  It's a call-in from Iowa caucusers and voters.

People who have made up their minds are fairly evenly divided between Bernie and Warren, both male and female.

People who haven't made up their minds are fairly divided between disappointment that Booker's out and "all these candidates are so well qualified it's hard to decide."

But I was a bit surprised to hear how very cogently, point-by-point those who favored Bernie most or Warren most, were able to tick off their reasons why.

Some feel that Biden's too vulnerable to the trump attack mode, and won't be able to handle it, due to the Ukraine and impeachment situation.

 

[mcbigski]

8 hours ago, Zorral said:

There is no way with an honest cost-risk-benefit and timeline that anybody should be wasting all that money, and all that time when climate catastrophe is IN EFFECT, building nuclear reactors, power plants and weapons.  None.  There is nothing so clumsy and filled with danger as a nuclear energy.  And it is NOT clean, it creates very dangerous waste, which is very difficult to dispose of.  Just.  No.

 

Nuclear power kills far far fewer people annually than coal or oil.  Though I did see this guy on Quora thinks differently:

Quote

So now, there are about 500 reactors in the world, so on average 10 people die from nuclear power per year per reactor. The nuclear pr folks think 50,000 deaths for 2% of the world’s energy is an acceptable loss for the privilege of getting dirty, expensive limited energy from nuclear power. Nuclear has never mattered. It’s never been more the 2% of the world’s energy, and it’s already short of uranium in 2025 or so.

Just thought it was so cute how this guy uses numbers.  Plus, peak uranium lol!

 

7 hours ago, maarsen said:

I could make the same argument about solar energy. Rather than being radiated out into space when night falls, solar energy that is captured and used stays and heats up the earth adding to a temperature rise. 

Of course.  In this thread we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Any source of useful energy is going to generate waste heat folks.  If you want to say fission isn't a viable alternative then compare its efficiency to burning dead animal and plant byproducts.  (not directed at you maarsen, sounds like you get that.)

5 hours ago, Darryk said:

CNN aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

"Bernie, did you say a woman couldn't win"

"Absolutely not"

"Elizabeth Warren, how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman can't win" 

 

Shocked.  Shocked.  A CNN debate moderator is biased towards the institutional imperative of the Democrat party?  Candy Crowley must be spinning in her grave.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

While I'm obviously all for the ERA, I don't get why the legal argument wouldn't be cut and dry.  The amendment passed by Congress gave until 1982 to ratify it.  Obviously that didn't happen.  Gotta say, if I was on the bench, I would deny this - along with the recent Nevada and Illinois ratifications - so as to not set a precedent.  Ratifying an amendment from 40 to 50 years ago is plainly not what the constitution had in mind.

Um, I think we agree?  Awkward.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

While I'm obviously all for the ERA, I don't get why the legal argument wouldn't be cut and dry.  The amendment passed by Congress gave until 1982 to ratify it.  Obviously that didn't happen.  Gotta say, if I was on the bench, I would deny this - along with the recent Nevada and Illinois ratifications - so as to not set a precedent.  Ratifying an amendment from 40 to 50 years ago is plainly not what the constitution had in mind.

The argument is that the deadline isn't part of the amendment text itself, it was a separate piece of legislation. And the Constitution doesn't say anything about deadlines for amendments, so perhaps that deadline legislation is what is unconstitutional. Or, alternatively, since the deadline was a simple piece of legislation, all it would take to lift the deadline would be a new piece of legislation. Obviously that wouldn't happen now, but perhaps it would next year if things went well.

Also, the 27th Amendment came into effect 202 years after the first states ratified it. Having a long delay is nothing new. 

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

HI!  I'm one of those moderates!  Sanders is REALLY hard for me.  (1) I really dislike him on a personal level.  Viscerally.  I guess he's better than the Orange One, but that's because he's the devil I DON'T know!  (2)  I disagree with him on many, many, many, things and think he is just the left's answer to demagoguery.  I don't like demagogues as a principled matter.  Note that I would enthusiastically vote for Warren (despite disagreeing with her on basically all the same things).  She doesn't inspire the same reaction.  Would I pull the lever for Sanders if it came to it?  I honestly don't know.  I'm not an historic Democrat.  I'm a never-Trumper and non-Republican.  That's a difference.  I will NOT vote for Trump, but Sanders?  I dunno.  Easier for me to be ambivalent sitting in NY.  Would be a totally different calculus if I lived, e.g., in Virginia.

I know liberals that hate Sanders. I totally get it. It helps to keep in mind the stakes of this election though. Even if you put aside the sledgehammer Trump will take to our democracy if he is re-elected, the main stakes are the Supreme Court. A SC going 6-3 or 7-2 Republican will have repercussions. And if you play even a small part in making it happen, you will have to watch decades as various vulnerable groups are harmed by this regressive cabal. And that's the best-case scenario, assuming the country limps along in some manner.

I know you're in NY, so not voting can feel safe. But I'm talking about other actions other than voting that might get Trump re-elected.

I'm not going to be very happy if Biden is nominated, but I'm going to have to quickly get over it. It's looking like it is likely at this point.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

That didn't come across like a joke at all. 

Bold 1: Bernie hedged his answer in that video pivoting from praising Castro (why????) to overthrowing governments which had absolutely nothing to do with what Anderson Cooper asked or what Hillary referenced. 

I provided more than that video. From the Politico article cited earlier and note the link included: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally

I thought I was pretty clearly being a smartass about the contrast with Trump's own tendencies to support Russia and dictators.

All I saw from the Cooper video is him emphasizing the components of socialism employed by Cuba that Sanders does support - namely education.  Supporting a certain policy of a foreign state is not condoning all the actions of said regime.

Ok, yeah, it's fair to bring up his support of the Sandinistas.  And you're right, the GOP will try to hammer him with it in the general if he's the nominee.  Not sure how much traction it'll get there.  On a substantive level, you could pull up, like, all the officeholding Republicans at the time which backed the Contras who were hardly more morally superior in any way.  On an electoral level, if a voter gives a shit about - or even knows about - our involvement in 1980s Nicaragua, then 99.99% of the time that voter has already made their choice.

Overall, you are talking about Bernie expressing support for aspects of the Castro, Maduro, and Ortega regimes.  And then curiously asking how such support is different from traditional socialism.  The answer is pretty obvious - all three of those regimes are socialist.  Again, I agree it is something that the GOP will try to emphasize in a hypothetical general election, but of all the reasons Bernie is probably going to lose, this is very low on the list.  Frankly, foreign policy is just not that salient with the American electorate right now.  Iran could change that.  Bernie's views on Latin American socialist regimes will not.

20 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, the 27th Amendment came into effect 202 years after the first states ratified it. Having a long delay is nothing new. 

The 27th was not politically controversial at the time of ratification, and I'm assuming the ERA still will be.  The argument about deadlines has already been had - that's why Congress started passing laws specifying expirations in the first place, and even extended it with the ERA.  If Congress proposes an amendment, and then passes another piece of legislation specifying the expiration of said proposal if it does not get ratified, in overturning the latter the courts would be ignoring Congress' Article V rights to control the proposal phase of the amendment process.  The ERA should have to go through the process again, which it has before.  It's pretty ironic that the argument against this adopts a "strict constructionist" type of approach to the constitution.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Wow.  I suppose it is convenient to narrow one's definition of progressive to only your preferred candidate, but what a ludicrous statement.

 

Smart. Smart stuff as always.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It matters because Sanders pisses some people off quite a bit, which makes it difficult for them to choose to vote for him specifically. Not because of his policy goals or because of his non-normal stance or whatever, but because specifically of him and his followers. There's a pretty big difference between 'I will vote for this person despite not agreeing with all of their stances' and "I will vote for this person despite actively hating him". 

Without disagreeing with any specific complaint of yours, I think it's kind of Demsplainy to tell a progressive that it's difficult to vote for someone they actively hate.

We know...it's gotten to be second nature for us.