US Politics: Vaguely above average Tuesday

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

 If you're going to have a weakness in your coalition, young voters is about the best weakness to have due to their lack of reliability. 

They are like having the Gauls as allies.

[Mauvka]

I’m interpreting Yang’s endorsement of Biden last night as a concession that a complete embrace of UBI isn’t a requirement for him.  

If we’re checking the characteristics boxes for an ideal VP, we have: female, diverse, young-ish, swing state, energizing.  And probably a cleaner record than Biden for insider politics/bad votes.  Yang checks a few of those boxes, and I’m not sure how many others do.  

[Darryk]

11 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

What do people think about Andrew Yang as a potential VP pick?

Given the hostility between the Dem establishment and the progressive Sanders/AOC wing of the party, Yang might be a more palatable progressive-friendly choice for Biden to make.  

I guess it ultimately depends on whether they feel like they’ll need to shore up support from  the liberal+youth vote for the general.  

I think he's got to pick a woman as his running mate, preferably a woman of colour.

[Darzin]

13 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

What do people think about Andrew Yang as a potential VP pick?

Given the hostility between the Dem establishment and the progressive Sanders/AOC wing of the party, Yang might be a more palatable progressive-friendly choice for Biden to make.  

I guess it ultimately depends on whether they feel like they’ll need to shore up support from  the liberal+youth vote for the general.  

I like the idea a lot, I'm not sure if Biden would go for that though, but Yang is popular among the left and youth, while being moderate enough to work with Biden without major issues. I do wonder if he might choose Buttigieg, demographically it doesn't make a ton of sense but Biden has said he wants a VP as a serious influential partner and that the most important factor is if he is "simpatico" with his VP. He's praised Buttigieg pretty highly since his endorsement and I wonder if he might choose him to carry the torch. Whoever Biden picks is going to be his groomed successor, I think realistically he's most likely to pick a woman not sure who but I hope it's not Amy Klobuchar.

[Maithanet]

I think Yang would be a very poor, bordering on terrible, VP pick.  Biden's central theme of the race is competence and normalcy.  Yang has never held public office and is a single issue candidate on an issue that Biden doesn't agree with and that if implemented would be very expensive and disruptive to daily life.  That isn't what Biden needs at all. 

[Darzin]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think Yang would be a very poor, bordering on terrible, VP pick.  Biden's central theme of the race is competence and normalcy.  Yang has never held public office and is a single issue candidate on an issue that Biden doesn't agree with and that if implemented would be very expensive and disruptive to daily life.  That isn't what Biden needs at all. 

Reading this I think you are right. Yang is probably not what he needs. I like Yang though and I hope he has some government role int he future. 

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Reading this I think you are right. Yang is probably not what he needs. I like Yang though and I hope he has some government role int he future. 

The tea leaves from about a week ago were that he is strongly thinking of running for NYC mayor.

[Mauvka]

18 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I do wonder if he might choose Buttigieg, demographically it doesn't make a ton of sense but Biden has said he wants a VP as a serious influential partner and that the most important factor is if he is "simpatico" with his VP. He's praised Buttigieg pretty highly since his endorsement and I wonder if he might choose him to carry the torch. Whoever Biden picks is going to be his groomed successor, I think realistically he's most likely to pick a woman not sure who but I hope it's not Amy Klobuchar.

If Biden goes with Buttigieg, that would be a big F*** You to the progressives in the Democratic Party, and I would certainly interpret such a choice as an indicator that Biden intends to run and govern without the party's left wing.  More so than any of the other moderate candidates, Buttigieg ran a campaign of attacking the policy ideas of the more liberal candidates.

4 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

AOC/Yang 2024

AOC seriously reminds me of the Governor of Harlan's World (Altered Carbon Season 2). 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

If Biden goes with Buttigieg, that would be a big F*** You to the progressives in the Democratic Party, and I would certainly interpret such a choice as an indicator that Biden intends to run and govern without the party's left wing.  More so than any of the other moderate candidates, Buttigieg ran a campaign of attacking the policy ideas of the more liberal candidates.

So?

I mean what's your conclusion? The Liberal/progressive wing should sit out this election to make sure of four more years of the Orange monster?

Biden's calculus would be he needs moderate independents to win this. And not the uberlibruls on the coasts. Sure you can do the Susan Sarandon thing, sit out the election and then demonstrate after Twitler's reelection against the caged children (Free range children are of course better).

Don't you blame it sunshine, don't blame it on the moonlight. Blame it on the Biden.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 hours ago, Myshkin said:

C’mon Larry. I like you, you know that. You’re a cool dude. But you really need to stop dismissing abuse and harassment as “being mean” or “making jokes”. I get you feel Bernie supporters are being unfairly singled out here, but, true or not, that’s no excuse for minimizing, and thus normalizing, specific abusive behavior.

I apologize to anyone who has been harassed or abused, and if what I said minimizes or erases what they've experienced I am truly sorry, I'm not trying to hand wave away doxxing or targetted harassment - that certainly wasn't my intent.  

My entire point, which I may well have made poorly, was that it's bullshit that only one candidate is supposed to answer for the shitty behavior of some supporters.  I'll drop this, and I am sorry that anything I said downplayed or normalized abuse, harassment or bullying.  

[Mauvka]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So?

I mean what's your conclusion? The Liberal/progressive wing should sit out this election to make sure of four more years of the Orange monster?

I consciously did not make a value statement.  I think we can make some deductions regarding the influence of the progressive movement on the democratic party establishment based on the VP choices (and campaign choices) of the presumptive Biden candidacy. The party might choose to go in either direction (court the moderates, or energize the progressives), and frankly, I don't know which choice would be more electorally successful.  

Given the party's track record of electoral mediocrity, they'll probably try to do some compromise mix of the two which will leave no one satisfied.

[aceluby]

I think Castro and Harris are on the short list for Biden.  I also think Sanders (who I voted for) should graciously bow out.  His coalition hasn't shown up to the polls and we need to focus on the real problem and put the infighting behind us.  I feel like 6 or 7 months of Joe vs The Volcano will be plenty to bring the left back into the folds.  That's months of pointing out every flaw, every misstep, every boondoggle that this administration does and continues to do.  It will be all the reminder the left needs to come out and vote against agent orange.

[Mauvka]

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I think Castro and Harris are on the short list for Biden. 

Harris would surprise me, given how she went after Biden early in the debates.  I don't see them working together all that well on a personal level.

Castro has somehow managed to leave no impression on me, despite following the election cycle relatively closely.  He seems like a very plausible pick on paper, though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

LOL, oh noes!!!  You mean those magical young Bernie supporters that were supposed to propel him to victory - but in actuality didn't even turnout for him?  If you're going to have a weakness in your coalition, young voters is about the best weakness to have due to their lack of reliability.  It's like one step up from saying Biden's weak with convicted felons.  Where is Biden strong?  In exactly the areas the Dem nominee needs to improve upon from 2016 in order to win:  African-Americans and suburban, and particularly suburban women, voters.  Will that translate into the general?  Not clear yet, but it's a good sign.  I'd be nice for him to shore up the Hispanic vote in order to lock down the SW, but Colorado & Nevada are trending pretty blue already.

Anyway, is anyone else tired of this Bernie Bros argument?  Sanders lost.  Again.  His presidential ambitions are officially over.  If his supporters want to lash out by childishly attack Biden, sure, correct the record there.  But if they wanna whine by arguing their supporters aren't as mean - or there aren't as many supporters who are mean - as other people are saying?  Uh, k, whatever.

As for when Sanders should drop out, I don't think it's really worth speculating about.  This is Bernie Sanders we're talking about.  He's going to stay in as long as possible - which with his fundraising ability means until the last contest - because he's still a self-centered malcontent.  It really shouldn't matter as long as he stays civil.

And that’s the rub. Four years ago to the day I said Sanders needs to drop out gracefully, and I feel the same today, because his only other option is to go negative like he did back then. He has no clear path to the nomination and his supporters are going to be harder to get in line, so what benefit is there to him staying in?

Also, regarding the “Bernie Bros” conversation, I’m over it too, but the last thing I want to say about it is that it’s not the toxicity that’s the problem, because yes every campaign can be guilty of it. The problem is the wide spread accusations that if you’re not down for the cause, you want people to suffer. That’s incredibly insulting to say of the majority of liberals, especially when Sanders’ plans have no chance of passing and becoming law.

[Stego]

On 3/10/2020 at 9:49 AM, Ran said:

Don't give up hope! 

You are aware that Biden and Trump are going to debate, right?

Election is over. Let's remake the DNC so there's a chance in 2024.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Four years ago to the day I said Sanders needs to drop out gracefully, and I feel the same today, because his only other option is to go negative like he did back then. He has no clear path to the nomination and his supporters are going to be harder to get in line, so what benefit is there to him staying in?

There are many reasons Hillary lost in 2016, but Sanders staying in too long isn't one of them.  That's just sour grapes on Hillary and her supporters' part.  And sure, there is no benefit, but there shouldn't be a cost either as long as Bernie doesn't go scorched earth (which I don't expect him to).

[Stego]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it interesting that we still hold it against people who supported the war, but largely give the same people a pass for their terrible stances on LGBTQ+ rights

Hillary Clinton did not support gay marriage as recently as a few years ago because it wasn't politically smart. She also voted for the Iraq war (voted in the Senate like she was a neocon, right down the line), caused the destabilization of Northern Africa during her time as Sec of State, and her husband is responsible for allowing two genocides in Africa.

And she was the choice for the Dems last time. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

Harris would surprise me, given how she went after Biden early in the debates.  I don't see them working together all that well on a personal level.

Castro has somehow managed to leave no impression on me, despite following the election cycle relatively closely.  He seems like a very plausible pick on paper, though.

One could argue that Castro’s attacks on Biden in the debates were worse than Harris’, because she was attacking something in the past while he was question Biden’s current mental fitness. The latter is more damning and harder to get over.

That said I still think Abrams is the VP in the end. She checks every box, and her one weak spot, not holding a high enough office, doesn’t matter anymore and can be used as an offensive pivot in a debate. She can point out that she should be the Governor of Georgia, but blatant voter suppression screwed her over hard and highlight how it hurts Americans across the country.

[Mauvka]

Abrams is almost definitely on the short list of potential candidates.  I don't know enough about her politics to say how I might personally feel about that combo, but I can see a lot of reason to put her on the ticket.  

[Stego]

6 hours ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

We give the Pentagon more money than they ask for every year because our economy relies on arms manufacturers. If that's not war profiteering idk what is.

We most certainly do not give the Pentagon 'more than they ask for.' They alot for overages, because running the world's largest, most complex and technologically advanced military sometimes has cost over-runs.