US Politics: Testing, Testing, T... Te.. Testing

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd replace Abrams with the Tammys.  And I'd still consider Warren even if she is 70.  And even if you have no intention of picking her, it'd be wise to leak she was on the shortlist.  Other than that, sounds about right to me, can't think of anyone else off the top of my head.  Also, presumably he's going to pick a women since he committed to doing so Sunday night, so Castro is a no-go.  As for Abrams, I think people are underestimating the backlash she will receive.  Then the election becomes about your VP pick, that didn't work out great with Palin (NOT that I'm comparing the two candidates personally...in ANY way, other than being female, I suppose).

Those are certainly worthy of the short list as well, but I fear Duckworth might also get some grossly unfair backlash. And if Warren is willing to give up her Senate seat, I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up as the Sec. of Treasury. Now that could be fun.

The reason Abrams still intrigues me is because of her only clear weakness that should matter, she lost. A skillful debater should be able to flip that and point out she'd be governor right now if not for voter suppression. That needs to be a huge issue in the fall, and there are interesting ways you could tie that with the outbreak. Voting could actually be made easier because of all of this.

[DMC]

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

Class solidarity and awareness is not great enough in the US to have people make the neuanced calculation that the Sean Hannitys and the Tucker Carlsons of the world are not on their side.

Means testing of the wealthy generally polls pretty well.  This political argument you're making doesn't really have any historical merit.  Social safety net programs generally become very popular once implemented.  The right isn't going to all of a sudden be able to use means testing as a cudgel to gut a program that's still incredibly popular - in the case of, say, Social Security. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A skillful debater should be able to flip that and point out she'd be governor right now if not for voter suppression. That needs to be a huge issue in the fall, and there are interesting ways you could tie that with the outbreak.

I agree the Dems should emphasize voter suppression as much as possible, but that seems to be a pretty weird reason to pick a VP.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I like Whitmer here in Michigan, she is doing an amazing job responding to the outbreak. Would hate to lose her for a VP post in what's essentially a 50/50 shot right now. Still, I suppose an adequate replacement could be found. We have a fair number of women in high positions here, and the last Dem governor was also a woman, so there is precedent.

I'm watching in amazement as Trump's approval ticked slightly upwards. It will all depend on whether we end up with a recession, and his supporters will consider extenuating circumstances regarding said recession,

Given that one of her major campaign issues was healthcare, it's just another plus. Idk anything about her Lt., but if he can deliver during redistricting, he's more than adequate for this hack.

And his approval will probably rise a bit in the short term. Greedy Americans love free money. Talk to me in two months though when there's a depression. My mom runs and and is a minority owner of a business that employees 75-100 people. She's been told to expect it to be shuttered for the summer and to file for unemployment. Bad time to be in the field of dentistry. 

[Fragile Bird]

10 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Universality is the best way to ensure the safety of a program. The second you start excluding people, you create a wedge, it may not be a big wedge at first, but then you start getting the folks talking about how it is only lazy poor brown people who are taking advantage of the system. It may not make a huge difference for those at the top, but it does not leave the chink in the armor that they will exploit to tear it down.

I totally disagree. The experience we have in Canada is once they got rolling, the Conservatives tailored every fucking thing to put checks and tax credits into the pockets of their wealthier supporters. Tax credits for piano lessons, ffs? Children living in poverty aren’t taking piano lessons. The Liberals, once they got into government, put cash into the hands of the parents of children and helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The Conservatives sent a $100 a month to every family, no matter how rich they were. Universality sounds good but it’s bullshit.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There is going to be a cut-off, where that cut-off was the sublject of negotiation The cut-off is rumoured to be $85,000. No one who makes more, at least in the first round of payments, will get money. Why, do you want money to go to people making $100,000 or $1 M ir more?

 

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Agreed.  This is where I don't get the left's hatred for most forms of "means testing."  Why do you think these benefits need to go to the wealthy that you otherwise want to tax into oblivion?

Any word on how they're controlling for location? $1,000 goes a lot further here In middle America than it does on the coasts.

[karaddin]

48 minutes ago, Fez said:

At least Biden clearly already had the nomination wrapped up. Imagine what a shitshow it'd have been if there was still 4 or 5 candidates with roughly equal amounts of support. Or if the virus was this widespread on Super Tuesday.

Now we just need to wrap Biden in cellophane and keep him at least six feet away from everybody until the election. Same goes fro RBG and Breyer.

While I wouldn't normally be talking about this, with the current pandemic and the risk profile for older patients it seems reasonable to ask.

What happens if the presumptive nominee dies prior to picking a running mate? Is there a difference in what happens if Sanders has dropped out and released his delegates vs him still being in? Just wondering if that could be another factor in his decision making.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree the Dems should emphasize voter suppression as much as possible, but that seems to be a pretty weird reason to pick a VP.

Perhaps, but if you think the VP doesn't matter that much, there are worse reasons to pick one than to have them be a single issue attack who highlights an issue directly leading to increased turnout for your side.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

While I wouldn't normally be talking about this, with the current pandemic and the risk profile for older patients it seems reasonable to ask.

What happens if the presumptive nominee dies prior to picking a running mate? Is there a difference in what happens if Sanders has dropped out and released his delegates vs him still being in? Just wondering if that could be another factor in his decision making.

If Biden dies before the convention, Sanders is the nominee. There's no need to open Pandora's Box.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

While I wouldn't normally be talking about this, with the current pandemic and the risk profile for older patients it seems reasonable to ask.

What happens if the presumptive nominee dies prior to picking a running mate? Is there a difference in what happens if Sanders has dropped out and released his delegates vs him still being in? Just wondering if that could be another factor in his decision making.

Given the dearth of "ZOMG!!! Sanders should totally drop out now" articles, I suspect there's an understanding that Sanders will stay in the race to lend legitimacy to events should that very thing happen, so there wouldn't be a messy controversy among everyone who dropped out.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Given the dearth of "ZOMG!!! Sanders should totally drop out now" articles, I suspect there's an understanding that Sanders will stay in the race to lend legitimacy to events should that very thing happen, so there wouldn't be a messy controversy among everyone who dropped out.

He doesn't need to stay in any longer to clearly be in second place in the delegate race.

[Freshwater Spartan]

If he refuses to drop out he should at least  stop campaigning. No more speeches, no more interviews, no more fundraising. Asking people to risk their lives to vote for a hopeless cause is going beyond vanity. Of course he won't do that. That might look like the decent thing to do. It might even look like he's playing same team as the Democrats. Can't be caught doing that!

[Fragile Bird]

Trump has already made clear the fact that he wants to bail out the airlines, ‘because a country has to have airlines’. And Boeing needs clients to sell planes to.

If all the airlines went bankrupt tomorrow, the next day there’d be 3 or 4 or more new airlines.

This is the kind of corporate welfare the Democrats should shake a fist at.

Since the last time the airlines got a bailout, either after 9/11 or after the financial crisis, I don’t remember which, or both, US airlines have used 93% of their cash to buy back shares. That’s why there’s no cash in the bank account, not because it’s a tough industry to be in. That figure was reported by an industry analyst this morning on CNBC.

Corporate executives have paid themselves with a lot of bonus shares, and buying back shares boosts share price. I haven’t looked at anybody’s financial statements, but you can be sure their boards have granted them lots and lots of options as a reward for their hard work.

[S John]

I too think it might be time for Bernie to throw in the towel and I voted for him both in this primary and in the 2016 primary.  
 

My .02 on Biden’s VP is that he should pick a woman who is relatively well known and also from the moderate wing of the party.  I can’t help but be reminded of McCain vs. Obama.  At the time I was a recovering conservative.  Tired of Bush but thought McCain was reasonably decent.  Enter Sarah Palin and I voted for Obama with no hesitation and haven’t voted for a Republican since.  I didn’t want that crazy lady just one old ass man’s heartbeat away from running the show.  
 

Not that the Dems really have any Sarah Palin types, just saying I think a 77 year old candidate needs to be really conscious of the fact that this person really might be taking the reigns because I think the voters in the general will be.  IMO, that makes an appeasement, or single-issue type pick slightly more risky than usual.  

[Kalbear]

If Biden dies, and Sanders somehow didn't have enough delegates to win first ballot, they'd go to second ballot and re-vote. It would be a clusterfuck, but until the convention no one is the candidate for POTUS, even if they have enough delegates. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

If Biden dies, and Sanders somehow didn't have enough delegates to win first ballot, they'd go to second ballot and re-vote. It would be a clusterfuck, but until the convention no one is the candidate for POTUS, even if they have enough delegates. 

 

Nah, Sanders would be the nominee and he'd pick a moderate as VP for unity. Nothing else would make sense, assuming winning matters. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Nah, Sanders would be the nominee and he'd pick a moderate as VP for unity. Nothing else would make sense, assuming winning matters. 

Sanders almost certainly would be the nominee, but he wouldn't be first-ballot. It's not that big of a deal.

Now if Sanders or Biden died while campaigning in 2020 after he's got the nomination? That's where it gets really weird. Especially if he died later in the thing, like Oct 20th or something. 

[DMC]

Yeah in the case of Biden dying I agree with Ty.  The party would be looking for stability, and by far the easiest way to do that is rally support behind the (overwhelmingly) second place finisher.  There would be coalescence, and he would be nominated by acclamation on the first ballot just like everybody else.

If the nominee dies after the convention, I'd strongly suspect such coalescence would center around the VP nominee.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Have to agree with DMC, the VP pick would be the candidate post-convention. Especially with the solid short lists discussed above. Each would be a women who would be easy to rally around, though my desire for Abrams goes down in this hypothetical. Structural reasons only though. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah in the case of Biden dying I agree with Ty.  The party would be looking for stability, and by far the easiest way to do that is rally support behind the (overwhelmingly) second place finisher.  There would be coalescence, and he would be nominated by acclamation on the first ballot just like everybody else.

I think this is a pretty optimistic assessment. Two weeks ago, almost every politician, pundit and Democratic strategist who could elbow their way into some air time was on TV warning all and sundry that it would practically be the end of the Democratic party if Sanders was the nominee. 

What changed? Will they suddenly not think that anymore? If Sanders drops out and releases his delegates, then he loses what leverage he has when people start arguing that they need to nominate a candidate like Biden since a candidate like Biden won the most delegates.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What changed? Will they suddenly not think that anymore? If Sanders drops out and releases his delegates, then he loses what leverage he has when people start arguing that they need to nominate a candidate like Biden since a candidate like Biden won the most delegates.

Well, what will have changed is the presumptive nominee of the party died.  That's a pretty big change.  The establishment would be looking at two options:  a floor fight after your presumptive nominee already died, or Sanders as the nominee.  The latter is plainly the path of least resistance, which is generally what you're looking for at such a time of upheaval.