US Politics: To Open or Not To Open, That's the Question

[ThinkerX]

Meanwhile, Trump threw a twitter tantrum that was almost amusing in a black humor sort of way.  This keeps up....perhaps folks will start talking seriously about the 25th amendment...

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-media-fox-tweets-nobles-015143636.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15

President Donald Trump launched another Twitter tirade against the media Sunday, slamming a days-old story about his lax work habits and even bashing his usual favorite Fox News, calling for an “alternative.”

Trump also called on reporters who wrote about Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to return their “Noble” prizes. There are no Noble prizes for reported stories, nor are there Nobel Prizes. There are Pulitzer Prizes for journalism; there is a Nobel Prize for literature.

That particular three-tweet rant about Noble prizes subsequently vanished. But hours later, Trump called his comments “sarcasm” — insisting he meant to say “Noble” prizes all along (even though he had earlier called on the “Noble Committee” to rescind the awards).

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

What would you like people like me to do? I refuse to adopt a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, because that's why we are where we're at. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom, because there's always an appeal to the greater evil.

Democrats should pick a better candidate next time.

Oh, it's not just Biden. Though it is interesting what things are moral and immoral depending on one's candidate of choice. But certain ones - like campaign funding, where candidates are just like 'no, I couldn't POSSIBLY' and Republicans are all 'yes please' is interesting because it is a moral choice that also massively affects actual campaign success. 

And Sanders probably should have been more morally flexible. If he hadn't been so staunchly against compromise he probably would have won. Progressives should pick a more flexible candidate next time, at least one that is willing to listen to other sides and think about compromise. 

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Honestly I don't think that replacing Biden on the ballot is a risky move so long as it is not Bernie they put on there. If they are able to find a compromise I actually think that it would go a long way to mollifying the left and potentially giving people someone to actually be excited for. I think that bringing back some of the folks who left the race early who never really go the chance to make an Impact due to the crowded field and including some folks who may not have run in the first place.Of course, I have a horrible feeling that would end up with Coumo as the Nominee, but hey at least he doesn't have any sexual harassment allegations against him (as far as I know).

It's a huge risk, absurdly so. Sanders would not be a great compromise candidate, but no one really would be.

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Biden is not the guy you ride or die with right now. Biden is extremely open to attacks and frankly not a lot of people are particularly excited about him.

Again, citation needed as to who is saying they're riding or dying. Especially the quoted text you quoted of mine, which had nothing to do with Biden per se. The most acceptable Democrats appear to be ones who have absolutely no record of note and are handsome. Everyone else? Oh, as soon as they sign any legislation they're deeply fucked. That went for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Biden, and Sanders. 

3 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

While I agree with the sentiment, I really don’t think history has borne out that Democrats care. Not voting for them gives a consequence of losing if they pick a shitty candidate- but they’ve shown a number of times now that’s an acceptable risk. I don’t know the solution to this. 

The person who has the most to lose for not voting for that shitty candidate is rarely the person who is sitting out. And the problem is that the supposed metric of non-shitty candidates doesn't really bear out as far as looking at who has won vs. who has lost. What, was Howard Dean going to beat Bush in 2004 over Kerry? Was Gore worse than, well, anyone else out there? Given that Sanders has lost to Biden AND to Clinton, was he going to beat Trump? The difference is that Republicans put out incredibly shitty candidates left and right, and they still win because their voters aren't as picky. 

If you want less shitty candidates, don't wait until the POTUS comes around every 4 years to vote, and start fixing things locally. 

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

ETA: And I like how you ignored all the other "oh, those aren't real allegations" allegations.

Yeah, I don't need to get into that because I just don't care. Which might have been signified by me cutting it out of your comment. Because I don't care.

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What would you like people like me to do? I refuse to adopt a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, because that's why we are where we're at. I'm not going to participate in a race to the bottom, because there's always an appeal to the greater evil.

Democrats should pick a better candidate next time.

Respect the game. Your guy lost and we still have a tyrant to defeat. Instead of pushing blame onto this and that and whatever and whomhither maybe just accept the results and, uh, "progressives" should pick a better candidate next time.

[ants]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

I think they're ahead of you on this. We're going to be getting a lot of ads with Trump rambling on and then stark statements from doctors, disinfectant makers like Lysol, etc. saying "NO, DON'T DO THAT."

Ads with Trump talking on oxychlorine and saying "what do you have to lose", and then the recent studies where people are dying would also make sense. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah, I don't need to get into that because I just don't care.

 Because I don't care.

That's blatantly obvious. Guess Dems should tell Reade to STFU because they don't care anymore. They cared when it was convenient for them, but now it's not, so they don't.

Quote

Respect the game. Your guy lost and we still have a tyrant to defeat. Instead of pushing blame onto this and that and whatever and whomhither maybe just accept the results and, uh, "progressives" should pick a better candidate next time.

Maybe moderates should pick up the mess they made.

[GrimTuesday]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's a huge risk, absurdly so. Sanders would not be a great compromise candidate, but no one really would be.

Again, citation needed as to who is saying they're riding or dying. Especially the quoted text you quoted of mine, which had nothing to do with Biden per se. The most acceptable Democrats appear to be ones who have absolutely no record of note and are handsome. Everyone else? Oh, as soon as they sign any legislation they're deeply fucked. That went for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Biden, and Sanders.

Uhhhhh, firstly I specifically said that it couldn't realistically be Bernie, though he has to be given a seat at the negotiating table if they are going to pick a candidate.

Secondly I think that replacing Biden is less risky then running him at this point. Republicans are sharpening their knives for November, because Biden doesn't just come with a record, he comes with baggage, and not just a carry on, it's the full ten piece set.

As for the ride or die thing, I was referring to the idea that Democrats are the only ones who have to follow certain rules. If you are going to give up your moral integrity, Biden is not the guy to do it for. I still think folks are being too defensive about Biden, but that is not what I am talking about in this case.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Uhhhhh, firstly I specifically said that it couldn't realistically be Bernie, though he has to be given a seat at the negotiating table if they are going to pick a candidate. 

I agree! I was making a statement that agreed with yours!

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Secondly I think that replacing Biden is less risky then running him at this point. Republicans are sharpening their knives for November, because Biden doesn't just come with a record, he comes with baggage, and not just a carry on, it's the full ten piece set. 

Eh. Clinton barely lost to a more popular Trump (back then) and she has absurdly large amounts of baggage, and we're coming off of the biggest economic crisis in 70 years. People caring about this allegation that is barely making the mainstream press at this point is not going to score a ton of points, especially when whataboutism gets Trump in far more hot water here. 

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

As for the ride or die thing, I was referring to the idea that Democrats are the only ones who have to follow certain rules. If you are going to give up your moral integrity, Biden is not the guy to do it for. I still think folks are being too defensive about Biden, but that is not what I am talking about in this case.

I'm saying that this has been the case for, like, the last 20 years or more. Also, as far as giving up your moral integrity cherry, I disagree completely. If there was one candidate to do that in the last 20 years it is Biden. Never have the consequences for the US been higher as far as putting a dem in the white house. We are literally seeing the results and the deaths that are happening in real time because of this decision. Biden may be more morally repugnant than others (I would argue Bill Clinton was worse), but the consequences are far worse now than they were in 2004, or in 2008, or even 2012. 

[Maithanet]

The Democrats are no doubt in a terrible position, and it has been giving me mild panic attacks all weekend thinking about another 5 years of Trump.  I don't know if these allegations are true, but they probably are.  I more or less assume that they are. 

Biden was a bad choice, and I never would have voted for him, but he's the choice.  All this talk of "what do we do?" is missing/ignoring a really big point.  Because pressuring Biden to step down or some Hail Mary backroom deal at the convention to replace him will fracture the party, possibly for a generation.  Remember that Biden was elected more than anything else on his strength with black voters.  To put all those voters aside and say "this choice is no longer acceptable because we know better than you" is...very, very dangerous.  I don't think I need to go into the history of black voters having their votes stolen/suppressed/ignored, and if the Democratic party does that, the backlash from black voters will be intense.  And they would be totally right to be outraged.

So what should Democrats do?  Accept that Biden is the nominee, even if people have buyers remorse.  Force the Biden campaign to champion policies showing that they support women, particularly victims of sexual harassment and domestic violence.  Stay laser focused on beating Trump, because Biden is still vastly superior to Trump on this and every issue that matters.  Nominate someone else in 2024. 

[karaddin]

I think replacing him and keeping him as the nominee both carry risks and you'd need a crystal ball or telepathy to identify the bigger risk. IF you get rid of him, you need him to go voluntarily and make a big deal out of doing it for a palatable reason - he doesn't have to admit the Reade accusation is true to say that "the stakes are too high to jeapardise the election by continuing under a cloud like this, the most important thing is everyone coming together to vote Trump out and save the union* etc etc".

Without him cooperating and accepting he's out, I do think it self destructs everything. 

*I hate patriotism and all that shit, but it seems to be important on both sides of the aisle in the US. I also hate this kind of cynical decision making, but if that's the conversation that's being had then I think this would be the way to go.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

While I agree with the sentiment, I really don’t think history has borne out that Democrats care. Not voting for them gives a consequence of losing if they pick a shitty candidate- but they’ve shown a number of times now that’s an acceptable risk. I don’t know the solution to this. 

I don't either. Wish to fuck I did.

I feel like part of the problem is that Democratic voters may be too risk-averse when compared to Republicans. 

[Fury Resurrected]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

If you want less shitty candidates, don't wait until the POTUS comes around every 4 years to vote, and start fixing things locally. 

I’ve never skipped an election, local or national, primary or otherwise. I’m a delegate. I have done this for the nearly 20 years I’ve been of voting age. When does the picking a candidate that isn’t actively shitty and dangerous for me as an indigenous woman start?

[Fez]

I think the thing that makes or breaks Biden is whether there's any other allegations that will come forward against him. And Dem leaders need to find out FAST if there are.

The news today is rough, but it's still just the one allegation, and is still essentially a he-said/she-said. Its more likely to be true now, but there's a chance the situation was a grey area (for the standards of time), and the absence of any other evidence I think nearly all potential Biden voters can stomach voting for him and the story doesn't go anywhere. 

However, if even one more woman comes forward with another allegation, he's toast. That's the proof needed of his character and it'll be a drumbeat of bad news until the election. The problem is, he'll never drop out on his own, because probably 90%+ of his potential voters will still vote for him; Democrat partisanship can be pretty strong too. But that 10% that won't anymore, that'll stay home or go third party, that's plenty to decide the election.

The only way this ends well is if there are no more allegations, or if Obama learns that there are and pushes Biden out. And I think it has to be Obama that to do; he's the only that wouldn't fracture the party immediately.

[ants]

To be honest, I'd now be speaking in Biden's ear about how he might withdraw.  I think this would be hugely damaging come November.  If Biden and Bernie could both withdraw and put support behind a single candidate, and Biden explained he wasn't guilty but didn't think it was appropriate for a Dem candidate to have these allegations hanging over them, then I think a switch could happen reasonably seamlessly.  

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

.......I'm saying that this has been the case for, like, the last 20 years or more. Also, as far as giving up your moral integrity cherry, I disagree completely. If there was one candidate to do that in the last 20 years it is Biden. Never have the consequences for the US been higher as far as putting a dem in the white house. We are literally seeing the results and the deaths that are happening in real time because of this decision. Biden may be more morally repugnant than others (I would argue Bill Clinton was worse), but the consequences are far worse now than they were in 2004, or in 2008, or even 2012. 

I don't necessarily agree on the damage (or lack thereof) of running Biden, but I definitely agree that this is the most critical election of the last 20-30 years.  Arguably (with hindsight) the last one was, but having lost 2016 and seeing the impact of Trump, and the age of the Dem SC judges, this one is just so critical. 

44 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's blatantly obvious. Guess Dems should tell Reade to STFU because they don't care anymore. They cared when it was convenient for them, but now it's not, so they don't.

Maybe moderates should pick up the mess they made.

So Jace speaks for not only every Dem on this board, but Dems everywhere? Right.....

[Fragile Bird]

My God I’d burst a lung laughing if Biden had to resign because a second woman came forward, while Trump sits there in the White House with so many sexual assault allegations against him, up to and including raping a woman in the dressing room at Neiman Marcus or whatever damn store it was.

Four years ago I joked that Trump was the President you deserved after that election (I even joked he was the president you deserved months before the election, little knowing how bad it would be) but if he gets elected again, man, I have zero sympathy. Zero. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ants said:

So Jace speaks for not only every Dem on this board, but Dems everywhere? Right.....

Nope. Just waiting to see how she and others somehow end up blaming progressives if Dems get beat in November.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

My God I’d burst a lung laughing if Biden had to resign because a second woman came forward, while Trump sits there in the White House with so many sexual assault allegations against him, up to and including raping a woman in the dressing room at Neiman Marcus or whatever damn store it was.

I'm asking this as an honest question: do you think that the "average American" takeaway from this will be to recognize the nuance of the situation, and that, while the allegation again Biden is bad, the allegations against Trump are worse?

My belief is that the average voter's takeaway will be "don't believe women". Hopefully I'm being too pessimistic.

[Martell Spy]

If Biden drops out, either willingly or pressured, does anyone really think Sanders won't just take the nomination? Is there a way to force him not to if he tries that? I know he dropped out. Can he still use his delegates?

I guess this kind of answers my question. This is if the nominee were to die, but it's kind of similar to the nominee purposely dropping out.

 

Sounds like the VP choice is looking more important. They could be more likely to the one to replace Biden.

Quote

 

For Democrats in 2020, that would mean DNC Chair Tom Perez would confer with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (the current chair of the Democratic Governors Association) and then issue a report to the full 447-member DNC. The party as a whole would then meet, deliberate, and pick a new nominee.

If a nominee had already selected a vice presidential pick, that could certainly factor into the party’s decision if the nominee dies. But Pildes noted it would not automatically mean the vice presidential pick would become the nominee.

 

If a presidential nominee gets coronavirus, we’re in uncharted territory
Here’s how the presidential nomination process could change if a nominee got coronavirus.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21186614/what-happens-presidential-nominee-coronavirus

[Reny of Storms End]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's blatantly obvious. Guess Dems should tell Reade to STFU because they don't care anymore. They cared when it was convenient for them, but now it's not, so they don't.

Maybe moderates should pick up the mess they made.

I'm not sure what you think the Dems can do? I'm sorry if you've laid out a plan that Dems should follow to address this and also not lose in spectacular fashion in the fall, and I missed it. Replacing Biden is a guarantee that the other rapist gets reelected. For many people this is what is most important. Do you like Donald Trump as President? I mean it's just a perfect analogy of most Democrats to throw an election for ideals, while the guy who wins does everything in his power to permanently destroy each and every ideal you have. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I’ve never skipped an election, local or national, primary or otherwise. I’m a delegate. I have done this for the nearly 20 years I’ve been of voting age. When does the picking a candidate that isn’t actively shitty and dangerous for me as an indigenous woman start?

When every single one of your friends, family members and most everyone else you know does the same thing. 

And then start making progressive candidates more like AOC and less like Sanders. Stop voting in progressives that literally had gone to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon. (yes, I KNOW that it's a bullshit thing, but again, it doesn't matter in the US, because image is everything).

54 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm asking this as an honest question: do you think that the "average American" takeaway from this will be to recognize the nuance of the situation, and that, while the allegation again Biden is bad, the allegations against Trump are worse?

My belief is that the average voter's takeaway will be "don't believe women". Hopefully I'm being too pessimistic.

That's still the case. That'll be the case for a long while. 

The average American will see any woman running for office and feel that it's somehow wrong, and won't know why, but they'll find ways to rationalize that feeling. The average American will naturally assume that any man being accused of anything by a woman is because that woman is taking that man down a peg. There is a good chance that if you pick a random American they will believe that Obama is a Muslim, that Trump reduced the deficit, that Clinton did break the law, and a smaller but good chance that said American believes that there is a grand conspiracy run by jews or muslims or big vaccine manufacturers. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I'm not sure what you think the Dems can do? I'm sorry if you've laid out a plan that Dems should follow to address this and also not lose in spectacular fashion in the fall, and I missed it. Replacing Biden is a guarantee that the other rapist gets reelected. For many people this is what is most important. Do you like Donald Trump as President? I mean it's just a perfect analogy of most Democrats to throw an election for ideals, while the guy who wins does everything in his power to permanently destroy each and every ideal you have. 

I've already stated my opinion in a previous thread that Democrats only need a warm body against Trump this year, because in the end, the election will come down entirely to how well the country thinks Trump handled the epidemic and ensuing economic fallout 6+ months from now.

If the virus is mostly gone over the summer, and the economy is on it's way to bouncing back, and the virus doesn't come back in the fall, it doesn't matter who you run against Trump, he's still going to win.

I don't think any of that will happen though, so why not replace Biden?