Jump to content

US Politics: Get Tested or Get Bested


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Democrats have a generic 7.5 point lead in Congress and the Senate outlook is promising

Yeah I meant to mention this over the weekend but forgot.  The generic ballot margin has actually been increasing for the Dems over the past month or two - hell, while it's a couple weeks behind, the RCP average is currently at Dem +8.2.  That's, I think, even higher than it was in 2018.  The idea Trump and the GOP are going to electorally run roughshod by activating fear and panic is, well, based on little to nothing but fear and panic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Definitely my biggest worry.

Eh. Remember that in the absolute worst case Trump, Pence and his entire cabinet will be out on January 20th. And all of the House will be out on Jan 4th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally we would approach something resembling normalcy around late summer, and by the time the election date rolls around we would have a functioning apparatus. At which point this high that Trump is enjoying for some unfathomable reason will have dissipated away and everyone will be left with the aftermath of the economic carnage that just happened.

One thing this pandemic should have made clear is that an extended primary season is needless, costly and a waste of everyone's time. As is an extended election season. The entire campaign should last from March till November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't think there's any need to worry about canceled elections in November right now.  It's entirely possible that may be necessary, of course, but no one knows that at this point, and considering all the other psychological hurdles this puts on individuals I don't think adding "will we even have an elected government come January?!?" is a concern the average American should be addressing right now.  I do agree that one silver lining of all this in terms of the presidential cycle is maybe we'll recognize the ridiculous length it's gotten to and try to shorten it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I don't think there's any need to worry about canceled elections in November right now.  It's entirely possible that may be necessary, of course, but no one knows that at this point, and considering all the other psychological hurdles this puts on individuals I don't think adding "will we even have an elected government come January?!?" is a concern the average American should be addressing right now.  I do agree that one silver lining of all this in terms of the presidential cycle is maybe we'll recognize the ridiculous length it's gotten to and try to shorten it.

Not worried about them being cancelled, just worried how they'll work and what the effects of the virus will be on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing stops the capitalist drive to acquire acquire acquire and use the government (big government they tell us is evil) to do so.  How more historically pure American can you get than stealing even more Native American land? (Additionally, at this very minute they're continuing to assiduously to dismantle 'obama care' too.)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/29/cruel-trump-admin-moves-take-land-mashpee-tribe-whose-casino-plans-irked-presidents

"Cruel:" Trump Admin. Moves to Take Land of Mashpee Tribe—Whose Casino Plans Irked President's "Special Interest Friends"—Out of Trust

The tribal chairman said the announcement came "on the very day that the United States has reached a record 100,000 confirmed cases of the coronavirus.".

Quote

 

... Cromwell said the Bureau of Indian Affairs informed him of the order from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.

"The secretary is under no court order to take our land out of trust," Cromwell said in his statement. "He is fully aware that litigation to uphold our status as a tribe eligible for the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act is ongoing."

"It begs the question, what is driving our federal trustee's crusade against our reservation?" he added.

Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who last year introduced legislation to protect the tribe's reservation as trust land in Massachusetts, called the order "one of the most cruel and nonsensical acts I have seen since coming to Congress."

The legislation has stalled in the Senate, the congressman said, since "President Donald Trump tweeted his opposition in an attempt to assist his lobbyist and special interest friends."....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I don't think there's any need to worry about canceled elections in November right now.  It's entirely possible that may be necessary, of course, but no one knows that at this point, and considering all the other psychological hurdles this puts on individuals I don't think adding "will we even have an elected government come January?!?" is a concern the average American should be addressing right now.  I do agree that one silver lining of all this in terms of the presidential cycle is maybe we'll recognize the ridiculous length it's gotten to and try to shorten it.

US elections were held according to regular schedule during War of 1812, US Civil War, Spanish Flu epidemic and WWII. Any talk of delaying or cancelling elections must be squashed - the harm that it would do would be far greater than any potential deaths caused by people spending time at the polling places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

just worried how they'll work and what the effects of the virus will be on them. 

Fair enough, and agreed.

43 minutes ago, Gorn said:

the harm that it would do would be far greater than any potential deaths caused by people spending time at the polling places.

No, I strongly disagree with this.  First, the "Spanish flu" did not impact a presidential election at all, it occurred in between cycles.  Second of all, the rest of your examples were wars where we were fighting an enemy that threatened our government itself.  Of course you want to maintain consistency in such instances, and have voters vote as should be to reinforce confidence in the cause.

That's not the same as this.  Who knows how long this will last, but if both parties agree it's reasonable to delay or alter November's general elections - which, ya know, is not out of the realm of possibility - I'll be willing to hear their explanation for why with an open mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's not the same as this.  Who knows how long this will last, but if both parties agree it's reasonable to delay or alter November's general elections - which, ya know, is not out of the realm of possibility - I'll be willing to hear their explanation for why with an open mind. 

I'm extremely cautious about the idea of delaying elections for any reason.  We have almost 250 years of history that elections go on no matter what, and I'm really leery about letting the two parties "agree" to postpone elections.  American democracy is bigger than Republicans and Democrats, and I don't feel at all comfortable just leaving it up to the two parties. 

At the very least, I need a damn good reason why such a delay is acceptable, and "mail in voting is awfully hard to do in just a few months" is not enough.  If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.  And there are very few things that the country ought to value higher than maintaining the integrity and safety of its elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Not worried about them being cancelled, just worried how they'll work and what the effects of the virus will be on them. 

My thoughts as well. How legitimate could they really be if large numbers of people are unable to vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm extremely careful of the idea of delaying elections for any reason.  We have almost 250 years of history that elections go on no matter what, and I'm really leery about letting the two parties "agree" to postpone elections.  American democracy is bigger than Republicans and Democrats, and I don't feel at all comfortable just leaving it up to the two parties. 

At the very least, I need a damn good reason why such a delay is acceptable, and "mail in voting is awfully hard to do in just a few months" is not enough.  If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.  And there are very few things that the country ought to value higher than maintaining the integrity and safety of its elections. 

The easy answer would be to just throw a lot of money at it and open like a hundred times as many voting locations as we had in 2016.

And everybody has to bring in their own pen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If it were October 30 right now instead of March 30, I could understand, but 6 months is a long time to get something done if the country wants to do it enough.

Agreed, I don't think this will be an issue - but there is obviously an increased possibility.  If October 30 looks like right now, then it is something to consider.  And no, it's not just because vote-by-mail is "too hard," it's because drastically changing the way millions of voters habitually go to the polls and then expecting or assuming they'll comply to such an alteration is just as much a "threat to democracy" or the traditional way of life as delaying the election would be.  

Anyway, normatively, the emphasis should be on ensuring turnout is at relatively similar levels to recent cycles.  If that means delaying for a bit, so be it in my view.  I am comfortable "just leaving it up to the two parties," because that's always been how anything meaningful changes in the entire history of the US government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving any decision up to rethugs inclusion is really stupid.  OTOH, what the Dems have to offer is also really stupid.

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A; it wouldn't have helped with this disease.

He's not even the nominee and he's stabbing us in the back.

With him running there's no need for an election at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A; it wouldn't have helped with this disease.

M4A is a loser in polling. It's not a shock that Elizabeth Warren's faltering in polls exactly happened when she presented her M4A plan. It's not a surprise that Biden is opposed.

A public option, as in Biden's proposal, is a more popular measure. Let insurers compete against a robust government plan. If they can manage, great, the market works. If they can't, the popularity of M4A will increase with time until it is inevitable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

With him running there's no need for an election at all.

Have you caught any of the news lately? There seem to be some problems that a basic functioning government would help with. Tens of thousands of avoidable deaths on the way over the next month. We have no capability to test and trace/monitor to get people safely working again. 

His support for M4A (WHICH STILL IS NOT A BILL THAT IS PASSING IN CONGRESS) is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. As this discussion always has been. I support universal coverage. I agree that privately-run insurance and healthcare is immoral and cannot be effective at scale. Pounding the table for M4A or bust AT ALL TIMES is not going to get us there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Joe Biden told the interviewer just now on MSNBC that he doesn't support M4A

Good.  All that means is he's not an idiot.  The worst thing the Democratic standard-bearer could do right now is support an unpopular policy change on the most important issue to voters that also entails the highest proportion of the national budget.  Radical change is not how you beat the "rethugs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Good.  All that means is he's not an idiot.  The worst thing the Democratic standard-bearer could do right now is support an unpopular policy change on the most important issue to voters that also entails the highest proportion of the national budget.  Radical change is not how you beat the "rethugs."

Particularly when he ran on not supporting M4A for the last year.  For him to change his policy now would be an extremely risky and highly questionable choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned a few days ago that Trump wants his signature on the crisis checks that go out to people, and the pushback was everyone has direct deposit.

I just heard the number: 60% of US taxpayers have direct deposit. There were 140 M taxpayers in 2018 (weirdly, there were 143 M in 2017, the number went down). So potentially 56 M checks will go out with Trump's name on them, if he manages to get that arranged. Many people will try to get direct deposit arranged, but who knows how many will succeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...