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

[Zorral]

 

[DMC]

If these results in Illinois hold and Biden wins by the expected margin in Arizona as well, I think tonight clearly shows there's no point for Sanders to stay in.  The demos keep showing the same thing since Super Tuesday - Biden is kicking his ass basically everywhere except young voters and Hispanic voters out in the southwest.  I know he wants to stay in "to continue the revolution" or whatever, but how much does it serve the cause by getting your ass kicked - much more so than against Hillary btw - by the likes of Joe Biden?  There's the leverage to change the party platform, and sure that's a fair point.  But how about the two of you just sit down like adults - actually, please don't, video conference guys - and work it out?  As long as Biden is amenable to adapting most policy proposals that are not unpopular/could potentially hurt him in the general, that should be good enough, right?  And Biden has signaled recently he's willing to do this.

[Maithanet]

It is really hard to see how losing states like Florida and Illinois and Michigan by huge margins is helping improve Sanders leverage, or helping further left wing causes.  It's fine to be flabbergasted that Democrats have chosen such an underwhelming candidate as Biden, but they have.  Hop on board and try and steer the train from the inside, rather than getting run over in primary after primary. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Strongly agree with the previous two posts. From a technical standpoint, if Sanders drops out, but there are still other candidates besides Biden, can all the remaining primaries and caucuses be cancelled without it affecting the nominating convention? Not something I recall studying much if at all.

[ThinkerX]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It is really hard to see how losing states like Florida and Illinois and Michigan by huge margins is helping improve Sanders leverage, or helping further left wing causes.  It's fine to be flabbergasted that Democrats have chosen such an underwhelming candidate as Biden, but they have.  Hop on board and try and steer the train from the inside, rather than getting run over in primary after primary. 

Yes, Sanders is loosing. But he is also sitting on a damn big pile of delegates.  For Biden or the Democratic establishment to ignore that is stupidity. 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

can all the remaining primaries and caucuses be cancelled without it affecting the nominating convention? Not something I recall studying much if at all.

Well, obviously as we've seen in five states, the primary elections can be pretty easily and quickly altered by the governor and/or the state legislature.  If Sanders drops out, endorses Biden, and releases his delegates, then the latter can be nominated at the convention by voice acclamation (this is how it pretty much always happens in the modern era anyway).  In which case, yeah, I don't see any problem with each state canceling their contest - and turning their attention to preparing for the general.

[DMC]

Heh, so following 538's live blog, and one of their editors had the gall to suggest a contested convention was never gonna happen.  Then Silver and his minions snap back, "I disagree, a contested convention was not only possible but even likely....because our model said it was."  Instead of just admitting your primary model is worthless.

Anyway, looks Sanders is making a comeback in Illinois due to running even in Cook County.  Most of that's from metro Chicago, still got the suburbs to go.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, obviously as we've seen in five states, the primary elections can be pretty easily and quickly altered by the governor and/or the state legislature.  If Sanders drops out, endorses Biden, and releases his delegates, then the latter can be nominated at the convention by voice acclamation (this is how it pretty much always happens in the modern era anyway).  In which case, yeah, I don't see any problem with each state canceling their contest - and turning their attention to preparing for the general.

Looking at the numbers, it's all academic. I didn't realize there were enough pledged votes now to hit the requirement if the losing candidates released their delegates. Was just kind of curious what happens if they have to suspend the primaries before there weren't enough to secure the nomination. Doesn't matter now.

Unrelated, Gov. Whitmer has been on T.V. a lot lately. She needs to be a strong candidate for VP. She checks most aspects one could hope for and would be a good foil against Pence in the debate. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gov. Whitmer has been on T.V. a lot lately. She needs to be a strong candidate for VP.

Yeah, Whitmer is definitely on my shortlist.  Seen her a lot on cable news recently as well.

[GrimTuesday]

Is no one else distressed by the fact that we see Republicans suggesting covid19 relief from the left of the Dems? Mittens suggested giving everybody a shot of Yang Bucks and the Democrats are suggesting the same kind of means tested trash they have for the last 40 years that has torpedoed any actual progress we could have made. We have these motherfuckers over a barrel, they can not be seen as hurting the working class right now. That said I did read a rather disturbing piece in the Guardian last year about Trump voters despairing that Trump's policies were hurting them rather than the people they should be hurting (you know, the brown people), so never under estimate American's fondness for cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Fez]

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, Whitmer is definitely on my shortlist.  Seen her a lot on cable news recently as well.

I'm down to pretty much her, Abrams and Harris at this point. I like Castro too, but I think you need a woman who is young by Washington's standards to be the pick. I don't really see a single flaw with any of the three, and I think they'd all crush Pence during the debate, not that it matters much and they could all be cancelled anyways.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm down to pretty much her, Abrams and Harris at this point.

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).

[IheartIheartTesla]

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,

[Fragile Bird]

23 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Is no one else distressed by the fact that we see Republicans suggesting covid19 relief from the left of the Dems? Mittens suggested giving everybody a shot of Yang Bucks and the Democrats are suggesting the same kind of means tested trash they have for the last 40 years that has torpedoed any actual progress we could have made. We have these motherfuckers over a barrel, they can not be seen as hurting the working class right now. That said I did read a rather disturbing piece in the Guardian last year about Trump voters despairing that Trump's policies were hurting them rather than the people they should be hurting (you know, the brown people), so never under estimate American's fondness for cutting off their nose to spite their face.

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?

[GrimTuesday]

1 minute 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?

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.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Would hate to lose her for a VP post in what's essentially a 50/50 shot right now.

Well, you wouldn't lose her unless they win.  Also, I always like Jennifer Granholm as well!

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Why, do you want money to go to people making $100,000 or $1 M ir more?

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?

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Why, do you want money to go to people making $100,000 or $1 M ir more?

I do. For the simple reason that it gets the money out the door much faster if you just send it to everyone. The more restrictions you put on money, the more administrative tasks need to get done. The recession checks, which went out while the full Federal workforce was working at full capacity, took 2 months to get sent out the door after the bill was signed; partly because they had to determine eligibility requirements. And right now there's no time to waste.

The IRS could always try clawing back the money after the fact. But even that would take substantial effort next year, when everyone is hopefully much busier with trying to get the economy back on its feet. Better to just launch a media campaign encouraging people who don't need the money to donate it to others or to charity; or to just not cash the check. Some, probably most, still will take the money, but at least some wouldn't.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, DMC said:

Well, you wouldn't lose her unless they win.  Also, I always like Jennifer Granholm as well!

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?

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. They prey on that resentment and means testing gives them the cracks they need to slither their way in. Do I want the rich to get anything? Fuck no! I think they should be dispossessed of most of their wealth and it get redistributed, but they are the ones who control the levers of power, and the second that they can start feeding that primal fear of someone getting something that you aren't, even if it is not true, they will and it is the beginning of the end most of the time.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Is no one else distressed by the fact that we see Republicans suggesting covid19 relief from the left of the Dems? Mittens suggested giving everybody a shot of Yang Bucks and the Democrats are suggesting the same kind of means tested trash they have for the last 40 years that has torpedoed any actual progress we could have made. We have these motherfuckers over a barrel, they can not be seen as hurting the working class right now. That said I did read a rather disturbing piece in the Guardian last year about Trump voters despairing that Trump's policies were hurting them rather than the people they should be hurting (you know, the brown people), so never under estimate American's fondness for cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I've never been more demoralized as a Democratic voter. The message leading Dems took from the primary is that they need to be playing small-ball, when they're dealing with a crisis where they should be swinging for the fences, so they propose a worthless bill with all sorts of carve-outs.

Meanwhile, Republicans are making policy proposals to the left of anything I've seen proposed by Democratic leadership? We're supposed to be the party of grown-ups, and yet somehow we're still going to manage to fuck this up because they were more concerned about politics than offering a real fix.

Seriously, just fuck the Democratic party right now.