Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:03 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,081

I will not be supporting Biden in the primaries. [Powers of the President of the Senate]


Note "in the primaries", there: If (as seems likely) he ends up as the Democratic candidate in the general election, then I will without hesitation give him as much support as I am able.

But I don't think he's the candidate we need. We need someone who will fight back against what the Republicans are doing, and I don't think he has it in him to do so. Why do I think this? Because he's already had opportunities to fight against them, and he passed those opportunities up.

Think of all of the perversions of democracy committed by Mitch McConnell, from 2008 to 2016. All of those things, McConnell only had the power to do, because Joe Biden decided to give him the power. Yes, I know that it's traditional for the President of the Senate to delegate those powers to the Senate Majority Leader. Lots of things are traditional, like the Senate holding votes. But the law is that the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate only when the President of the Senate does not.

We don't need a president who will blindly fall back on tradition when it favors the Republicans, while letting them gut tradition when it suits them. We need a president who will fight back just as hard as the Republicans are fighting. And the record shows that Biden would not be that president.

Currently, my support in the primaries is for Warren. That might change. But I don't think it will change to Biden.

Last edited by Bone; 10-07-2019 at 12:56 PM. Reason: Clarified thread title
  #2  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:07 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,667
Ok. Seems like a lot of people agree with you. I don't support him either, but mainly because I think he's a weak candidate. In addition Trump is looking weaker and I think the idea that only Biden can beat Trump is fading.
  #3  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:11 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,072
I'm not sure who I'm supporting in the Primaries. I like Biden, Warren and Buettigeg. I saw a blurb on Google's news page from Fox. Looks like they had a poll, and found Biden beating Trump in Wisconsin by, I believe, 9 points. I'm not committing at this point.
  #4  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:14 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
I also don't support Biden in the primary, for a variety of reasons. I would support almost any of the other Democrats, including Tulsi Gabbard, over Biden, at this time.
  #5  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:28 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Just out of curiosity - why does this declaration deserve a new thread? The current Biden thread and the several primary threads aren't of the subject matter close enough?
  #6  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:31 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,632
This thread has reminded me how overwhelmingly stupid our electoral system is. The decision of who the Democratic nominee will be will probably be made well before I even get a chance to vote.

Also, I will not be eating cauliflower tonight.
  #7  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:54 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,350
I'm right there with you Chronos, Warren has edged ahead of Sanders for me. His Heart Attack this week pushed me over. But any of the Dems over Trump is easy.

Warren has been better on the campaign trail than Hillary was and as mentioned, Trump looks more vulnerable this time. I do worry that Warren has made enemies of both Wall Street and the nut in charge of Facebook.

Sanders never had a real chance of getting the nomination anyway. So now I'm hoping he tries to get his supporters behind Warren instead.
  #8  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:58 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,676
I only care about winning the election. Anything on top of winning the White House is sprinkles on the frosting. Look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therein lies the acid test. I know Joe Biden will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if Warren can. I like Joe's chances in MI and WI more than I like Warren's. When Wall Street Democrats say they'll support Donnie Two Scoops over Warren, that makes me nervous. I don't care how feisty Warren would be in dealing with McConnell, I only care if there would be a Democrat fighting with him. And I'm not sure it makes a difference which Democrat. Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat. Sure, we need to elect women presidents and gay presidents. But not this time. This time we play the safest hand we have, and that's Joe Biden. Biden is like two pair in the hand and we can either get a full house or at worst two pairs with our draw. Warren is like an inside 6 high straight flush. Great if the draw is lucky, otherwise not so much.
  #9  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:00 AM
Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 29,817
I have actually voted Republican in my life, but obviously can not with Trump/Pence being the candidates. I might have voted for Jeb Bush back in 2016, but not Ted Cruz. Just perspective on where I am coming from.

Anyway, I would honestly nominate Pete Buttigieg or Andrew Yang. I may be ignorant, but I think both have a pretty solid record and I don't see any huge controversies about them.

Yeah, I'm fine with Elizabeth Warren and can even live with Biden if pressed. I'd love to see some candidates not in their 70's. Bernie Sanders is a lesser pick for me.

Voting Democratic for President no matter what at this point, though. Trump, Pence, or whatever they throw at it must lose.
  #10  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:14 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I only care about winning the election. Anything on top of winning the White House is sprinkles on the frosting. Look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therein lies the acid test. I know Joe Biden will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if Warren can. I like Joe's chances in MI and WI more than I like Warren's. When Wall Street Democrats say they'll support Donnie Two Scoops over Warren, that makes me nervous. I don't care how feisty Warren would be in dealing with McConnell, I only care if there would be a Democrat fighting with him. And I'm not sure it makes a difference which Democrat. Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat. Sure, we need to elect women presidents and gay presidents. But not this time. This time we play the safest hand we have, and that's Joe Biden. Biden is like two pair in the hand and we can either get a full house or at worst two pairs with our draw. Warren is like an inside 6 high straight flush. Great if the draw is lucky, otherwise not so much.
I could not have put it better myself. At least not at 10:00 on a Monday morning.
  #11  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:16 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,667
Like the OP I'll have no problem backing him if he becomes the Democratic candidate. I think just about everyone supporting any Democratic candidate will as well.
  #12  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:25 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,081
I thought it needed a new thread because most of the threads that it could fit in are so general that talk on any one specific topic gets lost, and this is a very specific topic.
Quote:
Quoth BobLibDem:

Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat.
But that's the point: Those aren't the only two ways to deal with him. Biden could have dealt with him in a way that didn't do either of those things, but he didn't.

Quote:
Quoth iiandyiiii:

I also don't support Biden in the primary, for a variety of reasons. I would support almost any of the other Democrats, including Tulsi Gabbard, over Biden, at this time.
Well, OK, if it somehow came down to a two-person race between Biden and Gabbard, then I would support Biden. But that's not a thing that's going to happen, so I don't feel any need to say much about that.
  #13  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:26 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,350
Honestly my vote will not matter, living in NJ, any Dem candidate will beat Trump here.
We won't decide the Primary winner as we vote so late in the process.

But the Rust Belt, Florida, Virginia. These are the really important states this time around.

The Dem must keep Virginia & Minnesota. Then take states like Penn, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin & Indiana. They should be able to take enough of these back to beat Trump this time. Just Florida & Penn would make the difference, but go after all of these states.

I feel like there might be a chance at Arizona & North Carolina also.
  #14  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,374
So are we all just accepting the OP's declaration that Biden could have siezed control of the Senate away from McConnell? I think he's overestimating the power of the President of the Senate.
  #15  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I only care about winning the election. Anything on top of winning the White House is sprinkles on the frosting. Look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therein lies the acid test. I know Joe Biden will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if Warren can. I like Joe's chances in MI and WI more than I like Warren's. When Wall Street Democrats say they'll support Donnie Two Scoops over Warren, that makes me nervous. I don't care how feisty Warren would be in dealing with McConnell, I only care if there would be a Democrat fighting with him. And I'm not sure it makes a difference which Democrat. Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat. Sure, we need to elect women presidents and gay presidents. But not this time. This time we play the safest hand we have, and that's Joe Biden. Biden is like two pair in the hand and we can either get a full house or at worst two pairs with our draw. Warren is like an inside 6 high straight flush. Great if the draw is lucky, otherwise not so much.
I would agree with this 100% except for the following:

For several reasons, Biden is likely to end up as an extremely weak candidate:
  • Every single candidate on the Democratic stage is smarter than Biden, even comparing with when Biden was in his prime.
  • His ads and debate performances already seem lack-luster. I'm afraid that Trump would make mincemeat of him in a one-on-one debate.
  • It may be that only stupid people are falling for the Hunter Biden scandal. But this election will be decided by stupid people.
  • The other octogenarian has already had an infarction. Biden may also suffer an age-related health problem. If it strikes after the primaries settle on Biden, the D's will plummet into chaos.
  • Biden's verbal gaffes are age-related ó you see nothing like this decades ago. The gaffes may get worse, and may convince some voters he's too old.
  • Biden is out-of-touch with the young progressives who are trying to energize the Democratic Party.
  • None of the above weaknesses apply to Warren. Even the stupidest voter may understand that the 'Pocahontas' insult reflects only on Trump's asininity.

OTOH, polls suggest that a healthy Biden would have a much better chance of beating Trump than Warren would have. This may be a VERY scary election.
  #16  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:51 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I thought it needed a new thread because most of the threads that it could fit in are so general that talk on any one specific topic gets lost, and this is a very specific topic.

But that's the point: Those aren't the only two ways to deal with him. Biden could have dealt with him in a way that didn't do either of those things, but he didn't.


Well, OK, if it somehow came down to a two-person race between Biden and Gabbard, then I would support Biden. But that's not a thing that's going to happen, so I don't feel any need to say much about that.
Who to support is pretty much THE topic of the Biden thread ... but okay.

The least improbable ways of successfully dealing with Moscow Mitch is either his losing his seat (not impossible) or losing the majority.

Make the argument that someone else can help achieve one of those with higher probability please. (Preferably on their strengths.)
  #17  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:03 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I would agree with this 100% except for the following:

For several reasons, Biden is likely to end up as an extremely weak candidate:
  • Every single candidate on the Democratic stage is smarter than Biden, even comparing with when Biden was in his prime.
  • His ads and debate performances already seem lack-luster. I'm afraid that Trump would make mincemeat of him in a one-on-one debate.
  • It may be that only stupid people are falling for the Hunter Biden scandal. But this election will be decided by stupid people.
  • The other octogenarian has already had an infarction. Biden may also suffer an age-related health problem. If it strikes after the primaries settle on Biden, the D's will plummet into chaos.
  • Biden's verbal gaffes are age-related ó you see nothing like this decades ago. The gaffes may get worse, and may convince some voters he's too old.
  • Biden is out-of-touch with the young progressives who are trying to energize the Democratic Party.
  • None of the above weaknesses apply to Warren. Even the stupidest voter may understand that the 'Pocahontas' insult reflects only on Trump's asininity.

OTOH, polls suggest that a healthy Biden would have a much better chance of beating Trump than Warren would have. This may be a VERY scary election.
Nitpick- these are septuagenarians, not octogenarians.

Yes, I think Biden is too old. He should have ran in 2016. Had he been nominated, he would have won.

I'm not worried about the Pocahontas stuff with Warren, I worry about losing the Wall Street Democrats. Few in number, large in influence.

Yes, his debates have sucked ass. But I think debates matter little. In the general, people watch them to cheer for their team, not soberly decide a winner. People no longer vote on issues, they vote on who they're rather share a beer with.

It's too bad Bullock insisted on doing his job rather than jump into the fray early. I think he'd be a stronger candidate than those that might win the nomination.

Should Joe have a health crisis or indeed die after nailing down the nomination, I think we'd just go to the second place person, likely to be Warren.
  #18  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:07 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,374
If you guys just want to make this another primary thread, fine. But the OP's criticism of Biden is based on a fundamental misconception of how the Senate works.
  #19  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:10 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,539
Iím glad a new thread was started and I think that should happen more frequently. No one wants to slog through a 6 page thread.

I am supporting Pete Buttigieg and volunteering for his campaign. I will support the eventual Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

Iím very active on #ElectionTwitter and Iím well aware it skews younger and more activist. Biden is going to be a very tough pill for many of them to swallow. The Iraq war and Clarence Thomas are really going to hurt Biden with millennials and Generation Z. Of course, the Senate was very different place back during the Thomas hearings and Iím sure Biden was also aware of the racial implications of defeating Thomas. But, in a #MeToo world, he looks damn awkward during those hearings. I just wish the progressive activists would also remember Bidenís fight to keep Bork off the court.

Biden has 3 decades of Senate votes, many of which donít look good under a 2019 microscope. Plus, there will be many Ďvoted for it before I voted against ití type votes.

And, I do realize that many of Bidenís supporters donít live in a Twitter bubble. Tweeting about Elizabeth Warren 20 times a day doesnít give you an extra vote.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #20  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:14 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But that's the point: Those aren't the only two ways to deal with him. Biden could have dealt with him in a way that didn't do either of those things, but he didn't.
OK, let's explore this. Does a vice president of one party have the ability to bring things to a vote even when in the minority on the floor? If that is true, then I think his time would have been better spent presiding over the Senate rather than being in the White House with the president. I don't think it works that way, I think the Senate Majority Leader has more say than the presiding officer. But I could be wrong.
  #21  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:23 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
OK, let's explore this. Does a vice president of one party have the ability to bring things to a vote even when in the minority on the floor? If that is true, then I think his time would have been better spent presiding over the Senate rather than being in the White House with the president. I don't think it works that way, I think the Senate Majority Leader has more say than the presiding officer. But I could be wrong.
No, it wouldnít be as easy as Biden walking to the Senate and calling up bills and forcing votes.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/c...ve_process.htm
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #22  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:26 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I only care about winning the election. Anything on top of winning the White House is sprinkles on the frosting. Look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therein lies the acid test. I know Joe Biden will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if Warren can. I like Joe's chances in MI and WI more than I like Warren's. When Wall Street Democrats say they'll support Donnie Two Scoops over Warren, that makes me nervous. I don't care how feisty Warren would be in dealing with McConnell, I only care if there would be a Democrat fighting with him. And I'm not sure it makes a difference which Democrat. Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat. Sure, we need to elect women presidents and gay presidents. But not this time. This time we play the safest hand we have, and that's Joe Biden. Biden is like two pair in the hand and we can either get a full house or at worst two pairs with our draw. Warren is like an inside 6 high straight flush. Great if the draw is lucky, otherwise not so much.
I'm on record saying that Biden may not be the candidate we want, but he is the candidate we need. I said this around the time he announced he was running. I've since wavered as I watched the Dem candidate field be whittled down to the top 5 most likely primary winners. I like almost everybody in the top 5 better than Biden. Even as I'm starting to think Bernie is about as unattractive as Biden at this point (not because of his policies, mind you). My ideal ticket would be Warren/Buttigieg. But if Biden comes out on top of the primary, then Biden for President it is.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #23  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:27 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
I do worry that Warren has made enemies of both Wall Street...
ďWhat? The billionaires donít like me? Oh no!Ē
  #24  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:44 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,413
I guess I am supporting Biden. Although living in New York mostly makes that a moot point.

I try to figure out who I think will do the most effective job as President. And while I'm not crazy about Biden, I think he's the best choice by that standard. He had a good record in the Senate of getting bills passed. Because having great ideas and making big promises on the campaign trail doesn't matter if you can't turn them into reality once you're in office.
  #25  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:50 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849

Moderating


This is a narrower thread than the general Biden thread. If anyone is interested in general Biden discussion, please take it to that thread.

The topic of this is specific - the procedural moves that Biden could or could not have done as Vice President. See the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But that's the point: Those aren't the only two ways to deal with him. Biden could have dealt with him in a way that didn't do either of those things, but he didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Think of all of the perversions of democracy committed by Mitch McConnell, from 2008 to 2016. All of those things, McConnell only had the power to do, because Joe Biden decided to give him the power. Yes, I know that it's traditional for the President of the Senate to delegate those powers to the Senate Majority Leader. Lots of things are traditional, like the Senate holding votes. But the law is that the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate only when the President of the Senate does not.
Please constrain discussion to this topic in this thread.

[/moderating]
  #26  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If you guys just want to make this another primary thread, fine. But the OP's criticism of Biden is based on a fundamental misconception of how the Senate works.
I for one admit to great confusion about how the Senate "works." If the President of the Senate says, with no basis, "I rule that your motion is out of order" what is Moscow Mitch going to do? Call the police?
  #27  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:57 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,081
Is there any power that the majority leader holds that isn't a manifestation of being the presiding officer? Alternately, is there any basis consistent with the Constitution on which anyone can refuse to allow the President of the Senate to preside?
  #28  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:13 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,348
Biden only has about a. 20-25% level of support in the primaries, and it keeps dropping. So you and about 75-80% of democratic primary voters agree on this.

I'm personally drawn between Warren and sanders. I like sanders moral consistency and how he was a dark horse in 2016, but I feel Warren understands liberal voters like technocrats and she has fleshed out ideas for everything. I'm fine with either one.

In the general I will support any Democrat who runs. But I think they all have some drawbacks. Maybe sanders or Warren would alienate some swing voters and moderate republican never trumpers, but Biden will alienate liberals and young voters. Each candidate has a risk of alienating someone in the democratic coalition.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-07-2019 at 12:15 PM.
  #29  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Is there any power that the majority leader holds that isn't a manifestation of being the presiding officer? ?
All of them, because he's not the presiding officer. The current one is Grassley, iirc. McConnell's power is derived from his status as majority leader. The president of the Senate only enforces parliamentary rules of order. The majority leader sets the agenda.
  #30  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is a narrower thread than the general Biden thread. If anyone is interested in general Biden discussion, please take it to that thread.

The topic of this is specific - the procedural moves that Biden could or could not have done as Vice President. See the following:




Please constrain discussion to this topic in this thread.

[/moderating]
You got that from that op? Youse da mod. Iíd suggest you rename the thread then at least. And then this is not really an Elections thread but a GQ one on the possible powers a VP has over the majority leader of the Senate.

Spoken as a confused reader only.
__________________
Oy.
  #31  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:39 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This thread has reminded me how overwhelmingly stupid our electoral system is. The decision of who the Democratic nominee will be will probably be made well before I even get a chance to vote.

Also, I will not be eating cauliflower tonight.
The DNC has argued in court that it has no obligation to heed the will of its primary voters, and the very notion of "super delegates" is so that the proper folk can decide who is annointed.
  #32  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:41 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You got that from that op? Youse da mod. Iíd suggest you rename the thread then at least. And then this is not really an Elections thread but a GQ one on the possible powers a VP has over the majority leader of the Senate.

Spoken as a confused reader only.
You must color within the lines, makes others nervous if ya don't. Are you herdable?
  #33  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:46 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
The DNC has argued in court that it has no obligation to heed the will of its primary voters, and the very notion of "super delegates" is so that the proper folk can decide who is annointed.
I take your question.
  #34  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:33 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,044
I think the VP has the right to preside, call on Senators to speak and enforce the rules. He has no power, AFAIK, to influence the agenda and certainly not to call a vote. Also he breaks ties. That is why the election will lead to total gridlock unless the Dems win the presidency and pick up at least three senate seats. Hopefully including McConnell who has weaponized his position. The senate sets its own rules that don't leave much space for the VP.
  #35  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:57 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 225
I do believe Biden if nominated stands best to beat Trump purely because he's smart enough (pragmatic) to have not chased the Sanders-left. Independents and swing state voters just by looking at the data we have are more likely to go to Biden.

He has the moderate wing of the party locked up to now because other realistic alternatives like Harris or Beto instead of holding the middle at the start thought going left was the way to go but later pivoted to the middle. That's bad optics as it seems flip-flopping. Buttigieg actually has been consistent but he's got the question of inexperience and rightly or wrongly whether America is ready for a gay president. Klobuchar was someone I had optimism for but it's fair to say she's yet to get going.

My worry about a Biden presidency is in 2024 he runs for re-election as a weak incumbent. In 2020 the goal is to beat Trump and he can build the coalition to do that but in 2024 whoever is the democratic incumbent president has to run on their record. In four years he probably will be too liberal for the Never Trump voters who will jump back to the GOP to rally behind Nikki Haley and too conservative for the younger, louder voices of his own party. I don't think "The Squad" will be happy with President Biden.
  #36  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:47 PM
Ukulele Ike is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,677
Bone @25: Moderators moderating moderators?

In MY day, moderators just wandered into other moderators’ houses (we all had keys, it was a simpler time), sat down at the kitchen table and drank all their beer, and said “cut that shit OUT” as we walked out the door.

Manhattan and Alphagene were the only ones who followed me and tackled me to the ground....Alphagene because he was 6’3” and 230 pounds; Manhattan because he kept a rather exclusive cellar.
__________________
Uke

Last edited by Ukulele Ike; 10-07-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #37  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:19 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I only care about winning the election. Anything on top of winning the White House is sprinkles on the frosting. Look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therein lies the acid test. I know Joe Biden will win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if Warren can. I like Joe's chances in MI and WI more than I like Warren's. When Wall Street Democrats say they'll support Donnie Two Scoops over Warren, that makes me nervous. I don't care how feisty Warren would be in dealing with McConnell, I only care if there would be a Democrat fighting with him. And I'm not sure it makes a difference which Democrat. Moscow Mitch can only be dealt with in two ways- make him minority leader or take away his seat. Sure, we need to elect women presidents and gay presidents. But not this time. This time we play the safest hand we have, and that's Joe Biden. Biden is like two pair in the hand and we can either get a full house or at worst two pairs with our draw. Warren is like an inside 6 high straight flush. Great if the draw is lucky, otherwise not so much.
Agreed on all counts. Unfortunately, PredictIt currently puts Warren at a 47% probability of winning the Dem nomination and Biden at 21%. She's going to win the primary. Everything is moving in her favor. Like you, I'd prefer Warren, but in the general, Trump will destroy her on her policy of abolishing private insurance. No policy position is more ripe for a Republican campaign that utterly terrifies the electorate. Healthcare may be important to voters, but they'd rather have a sub-par policy with certainty than wonder what they're gonna have. That's why the Republicans aren't nearly as afraid of her. They haven't even begun taking her apart yet - mischaracterizing her policies, demonizing her as a socialist, etc.. Right now it looks like, on average, Biden has +5%-ish lead on Warren against Trump. That could change in either direction. Ukraine could end up helping or hurting Biden - that remains to be seen. At this point, I'm not willing to roll a D20 and risk a critical hit.

To the idealists who think we should vote our preference and be damned the outcome I say (as I've said before on this board): Remodel the kitchen however you like, just don't do it when the house is burning down.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 10-07-2019 at 06:23 PM.
  #38  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:25 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I'd prefer Warren, but in the general, Trump will destroy her on her policy of abolishing private insurance. No policy position is more ripe for a Republican campaign that utterly terrifies the electorate.
Reparations?
  #39  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:26 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I do believe Biden if nominated...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Agreed on all counts. ...
Guys, please see the note in post #25.

[/moderating]
  #40  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:10 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Guys, please see the note in post #25.

[/moderating]
Whoops missed that. My apologies.
  #41  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:48 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,739
Yeah, likewise.
  #42  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I think the VP has the right to preside, call on Senators to speak and enforce the rules. He has no power, AFAIK, to influence the agenda and certainly not to call a vote. Also he breaks ties. ... The senate sets its own rules that don't leave much space for the VP.
This looks to me, too, as likely to be the case.

That would make Chronos' objection to Biden unfair, as Chronos would be criticizing Biden for failing to do something Biden had no power to do.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
...
But I don't think he's the candidate we need. We need someone who will fight back against what the Republicans are doing, and I don't think he has it in him to do so. Why do I think this? Because he's already had opportunities to fight against them, and he passed those opportunities up.

Think of all of the perversions of democracy committed by Mitch McConnell, from 2008 to 2016. All of those things, McConnell only had the power to do, because Joe Biden decided to give him the power. Yes, I know that it's traditional for the President of the Senate to delegate those powers to the Senate Majority Leader. Lots of things are traditional, like the Senate holding votes. But the law is that the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate only when the President of the Senate does not. ...
As I said, I don't think this is correct. But, hypothetically, if it were correct, would Obama have signed on to his VP making an unprecedented power-play of this kind? Obama, who was at great pains to avoid terrifying that half of the country that would have freaked out at anything that even remotely looked like an Unprecedented Power Play?

Think of the flak Obama got for signing Executive Orders, and multiply it by a googolplex for headlines such as Obama's VP Tries to Take Control of Senate or Obama Admin. Makes Senate Takeover Bid.

It's not just that I don't think a VP has a legitimate path to doing what you condemn Biden for failing to do----it's that Biden would have had to defy his own president in order to even attempt it.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 10-07-2019 at 08:01 PM.
  #43  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:26 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
A new banned I just herd of and ... so sad. I'll not hear them again.

Given the conversation in this thread is limited to "the procedural moves that Biden could or could not have done as Vice President" it seems like there is a factual answer:
Quote:
Vice presidents cannot vote in the Senate, except to break a tie, nor may they formally address the Senate, except with the senators' permission. Initially vice presidents appointed senators to standing committees, regulated access to the galleries and supervised the keeping of the Senate Journal, but these duties were later removed.
"Preside" does not mean set any order of business. At most it means maintaining decorum, recognizing whose turn it is to speak, and interpreting how the Senates rules and precedents should be applied.

It is not a position of significant power.

Is it proposed for a VP to refuse to recognize speakers of the other party? What sort of procedural moves are imagined?
  #44  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:04 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,377
I don't think it is likely at all that Biden will get the Democratic nomination at all. This Ukraine thing will damage Biden and Bernie's health problems will likely shift votes to Warren. Plus Biden just isn't very good at this, based on his previous runs.
  #45  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:22 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A new banned I just herd of and ... so sad. I'll not hear them again.

Given the conversation in this thread is limited to "the procedural moves that Biden could or could not have done as Vice President" it seems like there is a factual answer:

"Preside" does not mean set any order of business. At most it means maintaining decorum, recognizing whose turn it is to speak, and interpreting how the Senates rules and precedents should be applied.

It is not a position of significant power.

Is it proposed for a VP to refuse to recognize speakers of the other party? What sort of procedural moves are imagined?
I too would like to see some examples of the shenanigans Chronos thinks Biden should/could have gotten up to.
  #46  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
My question was NOT a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I for one admit to great confusion about how the Senate "works." If the President of the Senate says, with no basis, "I rule that your motion is out of order" what is Moscow Mitch going to do? Call the police?
When the Majority Leader and President of the Senate were BOTH Democrats they needed 60 votes to do anything. Now that the the Majority Leader and President of the Senate are both Republicans they do anything(*) they want with 50 votes.

Yeah, yeah; I know it's based on some gobbledy-gook ("reconciliation blah blah") from some ambiguous Rules of Order, but it's the leadership of the Senate which rules on what those rules are.

* - They still need 60 votes to pass a regular spending authorization, I guess. But the R's are the anti-government party and many are delighted when the government shuts down. If they had some spending they really wanted, you can bet they'd find a way to authorize it with 50 votes.
  #47  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:47 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,374
I think the important thing is that the President of the Senate isn't really part of the leadership. The job is to referee the game the Senate has decided to play. The role can probably be played at varying degrees of vigour but it's more like the Speaker in a Parliamentary system and not like the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Istm.
  #48  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:19 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Think of all of the perversions of democracy committed by Mitch McConnell, from 2008 to 2016. All of those things, McConnell only had the power to do, because Joe Biden decided to give him the power. Yes, I know that it's traditional for the President of the Senate to delegate those powers to the Senate Majority Leader. Lots of things are traditional, like the Senate holding votes. But the law is that the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate only when the President of the Senate does not.
So if the Dems win the White House in 2020 the new Veep can wrest control of the Senate from the Talking Turtle? Is that your fervent hope and prayer? I think it'd be pretty cool, if they could get away with it. Hell, all the other norms have been trampled on... why not?

Of course it's all fun and games until America gets its eye poked out when the next Dem-controlled Senate is usurped by the next GOP vice president.
  #49  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:34 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
The Dem must keep Virginia & Minnesota. Then take states like Penn, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin & Indiana. They should be able to take enough of these back to beat Trump this time. Just Florida & Penn would make the difference, but go after all of these states.
Thinking of Indiana, because I grew up there and probably still understand the politics there better than I do in California, and because it's likely the most difficult of the states you mentioned for the Dems to win in 2020, I think Biden has the best chance there. Or maaaaybe Mayor Pete but there's a Hoosier on the other side (Pence) to cancel out any Native Son effect. Even though Pence wasn't too popular as governor, it's still a Red state. Also Pete may struggle with the black vote there just enough to lose the state. No way Indiana ever goes Blue unless there's a HUGE black turnout especially in Lake and Marion counties. (See: Obama, Barack)

Some of the more moderate guys that've already folded up their tents might have played well in Indiana. But that's milquetoast under the bridge.

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 10-08-2019 at 02:38 AM. Reason: Fun and Profit
  #50  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:03 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Is there any power that the majority leader holds that isn't a manifestation of being the presiding officer? Alternately, is there any basis consistent with the Constitution on which anyone can refuse to allow the President of the Senate to preside?
From browsing a couple pages on the U.S. Senate site it appeared to me that the powers of the president of the Senate (the Veep) have been limited more and more over time by changes in the Senate rules. I don't think the Veep can call for a vote or even speak unless given permission, according to the Rules.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017