US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

[ThinkerX]

46 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

This is what the Republicans have the the Dems don't. Republicans tend to vote together (we've had some good spoilers for sure, like healthcare), but Democrats? They can't pass shit with a super majority. They are dysfunctional, and I just know they'll step on their dicks this time too. Probably because it will be Biden against Trump. Biden, who has always been considered a gaffe prone butt of the joke up until...now?

I have repeatedly come across that exact same argument from republicans.  

 

That said, the next president will be severely constrained in what they can accomplish regardless of campaign promises made beforehand. 

I do not see any of the major democratic contenders lasting more than a single term should they win.

As to republicans...a Pence victory is not likely.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

22 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I have repeatedly come across that exact same argument from republicans.  

 

That said, the next president will be severely constrained in what they can accomplish regardless of campaign promises made beforehand. 

I do not see any of the major democratic contenders lasting more than a single term should they win.

As to republicans...a Pence victory is not likely.

That's pretty grim! What kind of monster will republicans elect after Trump? I have to think you're right. Even Joe "I love working with Republicans" Biden isn't going to find much support.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Nope, just reading. Again, this is stuff you said a few days ago, to me, about my son. 

Wtf are you talking about. 

I didn't say a thing about your son. Maybe my own son who had cancer but...yeah. You're really the worst.

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Nope, just reading. Again, this is stuff you said a few days ago, to me, about my son. 

 

I believe you've confused Simon Steele with Darryk there Kalbear.

[butterbumps!]

21 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, that's the problem - Sanders makes sense strategically because he has a following that others don't.  I think there are some hypothetical candidates they'd support (the Squad, Ro Khanna maybe) but of those running only Warren would have a chance at them, but the issues seem to be (a) Warren's handling of her ancestral claims (b) Warren / Sanders "can a woman be president" fiasco (c) her past history as a conservative

I'm not going to get into those concerns or whether or not they're valid.  But right now Sanders is the only candidate running who is going to get those voters out there.

@butterbumps! I agree.  And I think if Sanders had done better on this in general since 2016 he'd be doing better with moderates and liberals and be leading all other candidates by 5-10%.  

I actually disagree about Sanders being the strategic choice.   I agree with the perceived areas of Warren’s weakness— she’s already been hammered on 2 of the 3 you mention at a national level— but let’s not lose sight of all the ways people will be turned off to Sanders once there is a dedicated operation against him, which there hadn’t previously been, as Clinton didn’t want to alienate his fans.   Whether valid or not, and among things, Sanders is extremely vulnerable on looking like a demagogue, like a Left-version of Trump, like an immovable ideologue who’d rather let people suffer than compromise his precious vision, having “woman issues,” being liable to sell out causes in service of his economic agenda, he has absolutely toxic fans that other leading candidates (aside from Trump!) do not, etc.  

I don’t think any of the three leading choices are particularly strong.   Bear in mind that Warren had an early surge  with favorable press that set off an onslaught of bad press and hand wringing over her M4A plan.  It’s only a matter of time until that swings for Sanders, who has mostly avoided critical pieces so far (as has Biden mostly, outside of being saddled with Burisma “corruption”).     Once all the candidates vulnerabilities are out there, of the three, I think Warren has the best chance to be a unifying figure, and the strongest president- I think she’s the best suited for the job itself.

I’m a reliable dem voter, but I am very close to being in the #NeverSanders camp.  I cannot stand him or his rabid fans*, genuinely think he would make a terrible president, and genuinely believe that should he beat Trump (big IF), he will turn a whole lot of people off to his agenda, an agenda I’d actually prefer to have enacted.

*This has a ton to do with sexism, which I think is going to dog his campaign.  I’m not saying he’s sexist, I’m saying a lot of sexists seem to like him, and they get unchallenged quarter in his coalition.   

I feel much, much more warmly toward him when considered outside of the presidency, like as a party leader.

5 hours ago, Triskele said:

 

Dang, this Jacobin piece (unlimited clicks provided by the socialists!) hyping Bernie over Warren from an electoral viability standpoint feels pretty convincing to me even knowing their biases.  I take major issue with one line about how this is not because Warren is a woman and because she is bad candidate (and I don't think the article weirdly even tries to back up that assertion), but the rest of the piece is pretty data-driven and does at first blush make me worry that Warren would get crushed.  A part of the argument rests heavily on the rural-ish districts but it also has these comparisons between Warren how she ran compared to other Dems that looks worrying.  

How much validity does that data have at a national level, or to the other states that will matter?   And how will that change once the big guns come out for Sanders?   All these types of pieces don’t seem to account for the massive vulnerabilities he will have once people start to scratch the surface a bit more vigorously.   

[IheartIheartTesla]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/24/us-soldiers-iran-traumatic-brain-injury-pentagon

Quote

Thirty-four US soldiers have been diagnosed with concussion or traumatic brain injury from an 8 January Iranian missile attack on their base in Iraq, the Pentagon has revealed.

Dont know why a bigger deal isn't being made of this. The problem with Trump fatigue in a nutshell.

[Ran]

4 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I’m a reliable dem voter, but I am very close to being in the #NeverSanders camp.  

Please don't fall into that hole. However bad a Sanders presidency may seem to you now (and I share many of your concerns), it will be better than a Trump presidency, not least because of the Supreme Court as well as any number of damaging executive orders and policies affecting a host of areas -- crime, immigration, the environment, climate change, etc. -- that would be overturned by Sanders.

[Jace, Extat]

Yeah but by 2025 Paul Ryan will be President. 

Give up! Burn down everything incriminating. Burn down your house. And then burn yourselves.

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

I believe you've confused Simon Steele with Darryk there Kalbear.

Ah, that might be. Apologies. 

[butterbumps!]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Please don't fall into that hole. However bad a Sanders presidency may seem to you now (and I share many of your concerns), it will be better than a Trump presidency, not least because of the Supreme Court as well as any number of damaging executive orders and policies affecting a host of areas -- crime, immigration, the environment, climate change, etc. -- that would be overturned by Sanders.

Oh yea, I’m definitely voting for whoever the Dems put up, but I’d be lying if this particular candidate doesn’t sorely tempt me at times to just vote down ballot in my extremely safe state.  But yea, to be clear about it, I’m definitely voting for the Dem candidate, as a continued Trump presidency is exponentially worse than anyone the Dems could possibly run.  When I complain about Sanders, I’m taking for granted that whatever issues I have with him is absolutely nothing compared to Trump, and that beating Trump is the real goal.  I’m planning to keep my anti-Sanders (and Biden) hissy fits mostly to myself once the general is on should one of them be the nominee.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, the idea is to get Trump out of office and then hold whoever is in office's feet to the fire. For instance, if hypothetically Biden were to become President then I would be sorely tempted to march outside the WH demanding he take instant action on climate change if he were to fall short. Easier to put pressure on your own side, pretty sure all the environmental regulations Trump has destroyed have to do with internal pressure from large portions of his base (as an example).

[Jace, Extat]

Y'all know the silver lining of Trump losing in 2020 right? He can run again in 2024.

The end is near! Tip your servers!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 hours ago, Triskele said:

Of course, unless there's an end to the filibuster.

If there was and 51 all of the sudden mattered then I think Democratic will would matter tremendously, but even there I'm convinced that the will would not be there.

 

Dang, this Jacobin piece (unlimited clicks provided by the socialists!) hyping Bernie over Warren from an electoral viability standpoint feels pretty convincing to me even knowing their biases.  I take major issue with one line about how this is not because Warren is a woman and because she is bad candidate (and I don't think the article weirdly even tries to back up that assertion), but the rest of the piece is pretty data-driven and does at first blush make me worry that Warren would get crushed.  A part of the argument rests heavily on the rural-ish districts but it also has these comparisons between Warren how she ran compared to other Dems that looks worrying.  

I truly appreciate Jacobin in general, but I think they're falling into the same trap as those who say, "We need someone electable!" We need the best candidate, and while that varies from person to person, trying to convince others to not vote for someone due to electability is exactly the same problematic argument people make about Sanders. In fact, I'd say Warren is highly electable. She'll get all the Dem voters no problem, I think. And then those people who went to Trump that had gone for Obama aren't stupid--they were definitely bamboozled by a conman--they have to be angry every time Trump tweets about the great economy and stock market while they're still struggling to make rent as housing costs skyrocket, wages stagnate, and they get to work in the "gig economy." Someone like Warren has specific plans to remedy this.

I love Bernie because he's got a history of being damn near a Marxist, but I honestly think when it comes time to vote for the primary, I'm going for Warren. She's younger, and I bet she'll get more done. 

I really resist these notions about Warren. And I am someone who definitely gets really frustrated with some of her campaign moves.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

My question is this:

After Trump wins re-election in 2020 how long does it take before they take whatever moves to make sure he never has to leave whether that's changing the constitution or whatever?  Maybe like February?  A few weeks after the inauguration?  

SSSSHHHHh

Such big questions aren't for little people like you! Back to your tools and troubles, knave!

[DireWolfSpirit]

Another classy moment from the Imposter-in-Chief:

Veterans group demands apology after Trump said traumatic brain injuries from Iranian attack are 'not very serious'

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/politics/trump-vfw-traumatic-brain-injuries/index.html

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah but by 2025 Paul Ryan will be President. 

Give up! Burn down everything incriminating. Burn down your house. And then burn yourselves.

Pfft, peasent. Take your big tax cut to buy one big McDonald's Happy Meal and be glad.

After that you are free to cheerfully burn yourself.

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

After Trump wins re-election in 2020 how long does it take before they take whatever moves to make sure he never has to leave whether that's changing the constitution or whatever?  Maybe like February?  A few weeks after the inauguration?   

Depending on the out come of the House and Senate races this year.

Either shortly before or after the midterms in 2022. Basically whenever they have a majority for it.

 

[Zorral]

Trump just gave away the Republican game on Social Security and Medicare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/trump-just-gave-away-republican-game-social-security-medicare/

Quote

....During an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Trump was asked, “[Would] entitlements ever be on your plate?” Entitlements are, of course, Washington-speak for Medicare and Social Security. Trump responded, “At some point they will be,” adding, “It’ll be toward the end of the year.” Just in case Trump misunderstood, Joe Kernen followed up, reminding him this was something he had “said you wouldn’t do in the past” and specifically mentioning Medicare. Trump cut him off. “Well, we’re going to look.”....

Trump Tries to Walk Back Entitlement Comments as Democrats Pounce

A day after President Trump suggested he was open to cutting entitlement programs in a second term, he insisted he would protect Social Security -- but the Dems are going to destroy it

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/trump-social-security.html

Quote

“Democrats are going to destroy your Social Security,” Mr. Trump tweeted shortly before leaving the White House for a campaign-related event in Florida. “I have totally left it alone, as promised, and will save it!”

 

[DMC]

17 hours ago, Triskele said:

I think that first line is quite misleading about what the article attempted to do since they focused so much on counties and whatnot.  I don't think that they were really comparing those two states at all.  They were attempting to take a look at places in either state that have certain characteristics and then project those results out across the country.

This is true, but the problem with comparing Sanders' electoral success in Vermont to Warren's in Massachusetts is that Sanders has been (successfully) running statewide in Vermont since 1990.  That's 8 House elections and 3 Senate elections compared to Warren's 2 Senate elections.  Sander's should significantly outperform Warren in their respective states.  Frankly, the respective lines of best fit (trendlines) should be further separated than they are - I don't expect that difference is statistically significant, as evidenced by the author neglecting to claim that it is.  The other empirical problem with that analysis is Sanders does appear to do better than Warren - but the difference appears most stark in the most conservative districts.  How many Obama-Trump voters are there in the most conservative districts (which is the author's own argument for that exercise)?  Generally, Obama-Trump voters are going to reside much more frequently in swing districts - since they constitute swing voters.

20 hours ago, Triskele said:

Is there any way we would actually see M4A even if a President Sanders is elected with a Senate majority and a big House majority?  I kind of doubt it.   

Almost certainly not, but the natural next step for a Democratic administration following Obama is to try to get a public option passed - which is much more popular than M4A anyway.  That's how progress usually works.  And Warren seems willing to hedge and compromise in order to work towards a getting a public option through Congress.  A President Sanders appears considerably less likely to compromise.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I sure hope that whoever the candidate is that they just murder them with this.  What a gift.  

Thanks for that analysis on the first part about the Jacobin piece.

On the 2nd part about M4A I really hope that Bernie wouldn't be so stubborn that he wouldn't get behind a public option if he had Dem Senate backing for it just because it was a compromise.  But I agree that with Warren there's no doubt she'd go for it and with Bernie there is a doubt.  

Is there though?  If Congress passes a public option do we honestly think Sanders wouldn't sign it?  

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Is there though?  If Congress passes a public option do we honestly think Sanders wouldn't sign it?  

That's not the point.  Even with unified government, passing major social legislation is going to require the full effort of POTUS.  Would Reid have been able to corral the necessary votes in the Seante without Obama putting all his political capital behind the ACA?  Hell, would Pelosi have been able to get a majority without Obama issuing an EO to appease the Stupak amendment members?  I have much much more faith in Warren being able to shepherd such major policy through the legislative process than Sanders based on both their respective records and personalities.