Straight Dope Message Board

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by DSeid

It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all.

...it isn't a misrepresentation to say that Biden didn't make any explicit commitment to any change in the transcript that you posted. It isn't a misrepresentation to say the opening paragraph of the transcript is a strawman, it isn't a misrepresentation to state that "what the donors know in their gut" is a subjective thing not an objective thing, and what they "know in their gut what needs to be done" is probably different to what the average American voter "knows in their gut". It isn't a misrepresentation to agree with the Vox article you cited when they stated "these comments are somewhat muddled."

What is clear though is you continue to misrepresent Wiegel's hot-take. And you seem to think a reporter expressing a deliberately provocative opinion on twitter is more problematic than inconsistent, unclear and muddled messaging from Biden and his camp. 551

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...for fucks sakes it was a fucking tweet. And after having examined what was said in context I can't really disagree with his "hot take." There was nothing unethical about what he posted, certainly nothing that would be actionable.

Maybe not unethical, but sloppy and irresponsible. And I don't buy that just because he's not putting it in an article and acting in the capacity as a WaPo writer that it's somehow less egregious. Weigel has followers. Weigel has readers. Weigel is clearly active in politics and in a much stronger position than you or I to influence the debate, and people can influence the debate by regurgitating distortion on twitter. It's not asking a lot for someone in his position to take some ownership of what he posts. 552

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by asahi

Maybe not unethical, but sloppy and irresponsible.

...it was a fucking tweet. It was a hot take. The tweet was labeled as such. It wasn't "sloppy" and Weigel bears no responsibility to Biden, his opinions are his own.

And I don't buy that just because he's not putting it in an article and acting in the capacity as a WaPo writer that it's somehow less egregious. Weigel has followers. Weigel has readers. Weigel is clearly active in politics and in a much stronger position than you or I to influence the debate, and people can influence the debate by regurgitating distortion on twitter. It's not asking a lot for someone in his position to take some ownership of what he posts.

I've read the transcript. What distortion are you talking about? 553

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

... Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They've gutted the Federal government, they've stripped funding, they've purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this.

No president has to fix the country on his or her own.

As monumental as the job of undoing Trump's damage is, it will be undertaken not by one person, but by many. All a president has to do is to appoint to his or her cabinet people who are smart, knowledgeable, effective, and decent.

You've offered no evidence that Biden is incapable of making such appointments.

I'm not a fan of Biden, but his numbers have been good for a while and remain good. At the moment he's the best chance we have of dislodging the rancid clown. Unless, of course, we decide to help the rancid clown by muddying the front-runner.

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

... If people hold the opinion that Biden is unsuitable to be the next President of the United States then this is the right place to argue that.

Seriously, "unsuitable"?

It's a binary choice. It's Trump or the Democrat. Keep knocking down the Democrats until the one you favor is the only one standing, and you will have achieved the foisting of four more years of Trump (at least) on a world that never deserved such a fate. 554

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

No president has to fix the country on his or her own.

As monumental as the job of undoing Trump's damage is, it will be undertaken not by one person, but by many. All a president has to do is to appoint to his or her cabinet people who are smart, knowledgeable, effective, and decent.

...strawman. I haven't claimed that it is the president has to fix the country on their own.

You've offered no evidence that Biden is incapable of making such appointments.

Why would I need to offer evidence for a claim that I haven't made? I don't think on a fundamental level Biden understands the level of threat that the people responsible for elevating Trump into power pose to America as a nation. That doesn't give me confidence he would make the "appropriate appointments." I think there are other candidates that are running that would show a better understanding of the issues at play and would make better choices than Biden would. And to be completely clear lest you demand I provide evidence for this: this is my opinion based on my personal evaluation on the candidates that are running and my knowledge and understanding of Trump, his administration, and how they came to power. I could elaborate on this: but I literally don't have that many hours free in my day.

I'm not a fan of Biden, but his numbers have been good for a while and remain good. At the moment he's the best chance we have of dislodging the rancid clown. Unless, of course, we decide to help the rancid clown by muddying the front-runner.

If the front-runner is running through a muddy puddle we aren't helping the "rancid clown" by pointing out the front-runner is covered in mud. You guys have got to stop trying to "shut-down-the-debate" because you think that something is going to "help Trump." You can't quantify that. You can't quantify the impact of me "disagreeing with Biden" on an internet messageboard will have on the next election. This isn't a "game of checkers." If you are going to defeat Trump then you are going to have to work for it. It isn't going to happen here. You will need to fight to get people out to vote, fight and actively combat voter suppression, fight to ensure the security of the next elections, get out on the streets and make your voices heard. What I do here in this thread isn't going to convince anyone to vote for Trump. So stop pretending that it will.

Seriously, "unsuitable"?

Seriously. Unsuitable.

It's a binary choice. It's Trump or the Democrat. Keep knocking down the Democrats until the one you favor is the only one standing, and you will have achieved the foisting of four more years of Trump (at least) on a world that never deserved such a fate.

What do you think the primary process is all about? It isn't a binary choice. The Democrats should be putting the best candidate forward and to do that there should be honest and robust debate. If Biden has flaws then the best time to discuss that is now. Get all the dirty laundry out in the open now. If Biden wins the primary then I will happily shut my mouth and put in every effort (that I can on the other side of the planet) into seeing he gets elected. But I think there are better candidates. And i think that Biden is seriously problematic. You would do better to listen what other people have to say rather than trying to shut the debate down. 555

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...strawman. I haven't claimed that it is the president has to fix the country on their own. Why would I need to offer evidence for a claim that I haven't made?

You offered as your reason for Biden being an Unsuitable Candidate:

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

Trump and co have severally damaged America at a structural level. They've gutted the Federal government, they've stripped funding, they've purged agencies and replaced them with loyalists. Biden has shown nothing in the last year to indicate that he understand the scale of what he needs to do to be able to deal with this.

and

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

I don't think on a fundamental level Biden understands the level of threat that the people responsible for elevating Trump into power pose to America as a nation.

How are these not claims that Biden's unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself? How are these not claims that Biden must "understand the level of threat" in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished?

It's a narcissistic argument, really: the Democratic candidate must see the political scene exactly the way you do, or he/she can accomplish nothing!

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

You guys have got to stop trying to "shut-down-the-debate" because you think that something is going to "help Trump."

... You would do better to listen what other people have to say rather than trying to shut the debate down.

You're projecting.

There's making your case for a candidate---and then there's putting your energy into impairing a candidate who's in a better competitive position than is your candidate.

People can see the difference. 556

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

You offered as your reason for Biden being an Unsuitable Candidate:

and

How are these not claims that Biden's unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself? How are these not claims that Biden must "understand the level of threat" in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished?

...my claims are what I said. I did not assert that "Biden's unsuitability lies in his failure to be able to conceive of each and every solution himself." I did not assert that that "Biden must "understand the level of threat" in order for anything beneficial to be accomplished." If you want to know what I actually said then read the words that I wrote and that you quoted. I'm happy to address that but not the strawman version you've invented.

It's a narcissistic argument, really: the Democratic candidate must see the political scene exactly the way you do, or he/she can accomplish nothing!

Give me a fucking break. Narcissistic? Do you not understand the purpose of the elections forum? Disagreement is not narcissism. What a ridiculous comment.

You're projecting.

Not at all. You are trying to shut down disagreement.

There's making your case for a candidate---and then there's putting your energy into impairing a candidate who's in a better competitive position than is your candidate.

This thread is about Joe Fucking Biden. I'm not obligated to make a case for "another candidate". This is a discussion about Biden. If I think he has flaws than what is your problem with people discussing that here?

I'm not "impairing" Biden by discussing what I consider his flaws to be on a messageboard. Did you seriously actually write that I'm "impairing a candidate who's in a better competitive position than is your candidate?" Even if I was doing that...what would be the problem with doing that? Its literally a "competition." What is the correct thing I'm supposed to be doing? How am I supposed to behave?

People can see the difference.

You seem to both be misunderstanding what I'm saying in this thread and misunderstanding the purpose of a debate forum on a messageboard. I'm sure people can "see the difference." But I'm not sure why you think the difference is important. This isn't the "ra ra Biden" thread. I'm not going to hop on the "Biden Train" just because you are telling me I'm doing things wrong. 557

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Context!

Not bad - only took you a day and a half.

Fuller quote.


There's really no disagreement that he was saying that income inequality as large as we have it is a real and serious problem

He definitely said this.

that he intends to address by taxing them more

Is the place where you quote him saying that in invisible ink, or something? Maybe he just means upping the minimum wage to $10.

It is a clear misrepresentation to say that he was promising there will be no changes at all.

Good thing nobody said that!

You have to be fucking kidding me if you do not see that as a horrific misrepresentation.

If someone had said that, that would certainly be the case.

As the Vox article that I harvested pointed out, there really is not that much actual difference between that statement and Warren pointing out that her wealth tax, "two cents on every dollar above a $50 million-plus fortune" isn't going to be anything that any of them cannot easily afford. They'll still be very rich.

The difference is tone. He approaches the players with a presumption of good will that he believes facilitates working together to a common good, trying to get all on board.

'The players' - so Mitch was there?

He can presume good will on McConnell's part from here to the end of the Universe, but Obama did the same, and how much good did it do?

Again, nothing against trying to reach across the aisle. But best if it's a supplementary approach, because quite frankly a presumption of good will on McConnell's part is like a presumption of magic unicorns.

He resists othering and demonization.

This hardly makes him unique among the Dem candidates. Just because they realize what they're up against, that's not the same as othering and demonization. Excluded middle, and all that.

And he implies that their alternative to working with him on this is being portrayed by others as the enemy who must be destroyed.

So it's OK if Biden slanders his opponents, as long as they're Democrats. He's just got to make nice with Republicans and rich people.

Gotcha.

So the actual laundry detergent in the boxes are not all that different while the packaging and marketing are the thing. He is selling a box that says "Let's at least try to move away from hyperpolarization, demonization, and othering." It might not sell well to Democratic voters and it might.

It clearly is not the packaging you prefer.

A plan to get your plans through Congress is not mere packaging. And Biden's plan has already been proven to be magic unicorns: I'm old enough to remember the Obama Administration. I don't put my trust in magic unicorns. 558

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...it isn't a misrepresentation to say that

this whole post was gaslighting.

FWIW I feel it is completely fair for you to state that you don’t think Biden grasps the scale and such. I don’t agree but your expressing those thoughts is completely legit. You think Wang or Sanders or Warren or Gabbard or whoever have a better grasp on the severity and are more “suitable” that is fine.

Biden is on record as planning to reverse Trump’s tax cuts that inordinately benefitted large corporations and the very wealthiest. He is on record as wanting to expand low income tax credits. He proposes eliminating the “stepped basis loophole” on inheritance and using that to better fund college education.

These are not no changes and all in that room know that these are his plans. And are open to some degree to accepting his taxing them more for the greater good. And to the recognition that they can afford this.

What he does not do is go to class warfare as his approach to take on wealth inequality. If you want a Robespierre he ain’t your guy.

He’s taken heat for going against the class warfare grain. But that’s not his angle. He tries to avoid the “othering” play.

Again in directionality there aren’t many differences on the D side. And assuming a D win whoever wins will try to work to get a few Rs in Senate to cross over and aim for some bipartisan compromises. No one will end up passing a plan that taxes the very wealthy so high that they must change their lifestyles, or move away to avoid such punitive taxation. No executions in the town square by anyone. Sorry. In rhetorical approach though, the difference is huge. 559

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by DSeid

this whole post was gaslighting.

...gaslighting is a "form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity."

My post most definitely was not gaslighting. 560

[asahi]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Gotcha. A plan to get your plans through Congress is not mere packaging. And Biden's plan has already been proven to be magic unicorns: I'm old enough to remember the Obama Administration. I don't put my trust in magic unicorns.

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying Obama could have accomplished more but didn't? I just want to make sure I understand your point. 561

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by asahi

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying Obama could have accomplished more but didn't? I just want to make sure I understand your point.

My point is that Obama spent eight years doing his damnedest to reach across the aisle. He believed in it. It's inherent in his 2004 keynote speech that made him a national figure. He ran on it in his 2008 campaign. When he won, he "looked forward, not back" and didn't try to embarrass the GOP with all the evils, up to and including torture, that they'd implicitly endorsed with their support of Bush right to the end of his term, despite the reality that we needed, and still need, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with all that shit. And it was implicit in his policy choices, from making the ARRA (stimulus) smaller to make it more GOP-friendly, to making his final Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, the most GOP-acceptable person he could find without betraying his own party.

And how did the GOP respond?

So my contention is that we've seen how Mitch McConnell responds to a Democratic President who bends over backwards to reach across the aisle. In spades, doubled and redoubled, at the grand slam level.

The notion that Biden will try the same approach, and somehow it'll work this time, Mitch McConnell will not be the Mitch McConnell that he's been since January 2007, including throughout the Obama presidency, is MAGICAL THINKING.

A Presidential candidate has to have three sets of plans:

1) A plan to win the nomination and the election.
2) The plans for the legislation s/he'd get through Congress if the stars aligned and made it possible.
3) A plan for getting that legislation through Congress once s/he's won.

Some candidates are grappling with the challenge that #3 represents, others aren't. Biden's plan is the Magical Unicorn plan of he'll reach across the aisle and McConnell magically won't be the McConnell he was while Obama was President, back in the pre-Trump era that Biden wants to take us back to. 562

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

this whole post was gaslighting.

What Banquet Bear said about 'gaslighting.' The term comes from the 1944 movie and the play it was based on.

Biden is on record as planning to reverse Trump’s tax cuts that inordinately benefitted large corporations and the very wealthiest. He is on record as wanting to expand low income tax credits. He proposes eliminating the “stepped basis loophole” on inheritance and using that to better fund college education.

These are not no changes and all in that room know that these are his plans. And are open to some degree to accepting his taxing them more for the greater good. And to the recognition that they can afford this.

And surely basking in the awareness that if he becomes President, his plan for getting these changes through Congress is to have a beer with Mitch McConnell who will then magically agree to none of it. 563

[asahi]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

My point is that Obama spent eight years doing his damnedest to reach across the aisle. He believed in it. It's inherent in his 2004 keynote speech that made him a national figure. He ran on it in his 2008 campaign. When he won, he "looked forward, not back" and didn't try to embarrass the GOP with all the evils, up to and including torture, that they'd implicitly endorsed with their support of Bush right to the end of his term, despite the reality that we needed, and still need, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with all that shit. And it was implicit in his policy choices, from making the ARRA (stimulus) smaller to make it more GOP-friendly, to making his final Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, the most GOP-acceptable person he could find without betraying his own party.

And how did the GOP respond?

So my contention is that we've seen how Mitch McConnell responds to a Democratic President who bends over backwards to reach across the aisle. In spades, doubled and redoubled, at the grand slam level.

The notion that Biden will try the same approach, and somehow it'll work this time, Mitch McConnell will not be the Mitch McConnell that he's been since January 2007, including throughout the Obama presidency, is MAGICAL THINKING.

A Presidential candidate has to have three sets of plans:

1) A plan to win the nomination and the election.
2) The plans for the legislation s/he'd get through Congress if the stars aligned and made it possible.
3) A plan for getting that legislation through Congress once s/he's won.

Some candidates are grappling with the challenge that #3 represents, others aren't. Biden's plan is the Magical Unicorn plan of he'll reach across the aisle and McConnell magically won't be the McConnell he was while Obama was President, back in the pre-Trump era that Biden wants to take us back to.

I get your point about partisanship, but what would the other progressive candidates do to get legislation past McConnell's GOP Senate majority that Biden wouldn't?

I could be wrong, but I read his comments as a message to voters that if you want Washington to improve, we have to change the tone of the discourse first, and that maybe they should factor that when voting. And yes, where possible, where political stars align, work together, or at least convince some fence-sitters to vote across party lines. I don't think Biden's under the impression that he alone can change Washington just by being nice and trying to back slap Mitch McConnell. 564

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

What Banquet Bear said about 'gaslighting.' The term comes from the 1944 movie and the play it was based on.And surely basking in the awareness that if he becomes President, his plan for getting these changes through Congress is to have a beer with Mitch McConnell who will then magically agree to none of it.

Yes, I know exactly what "gaslighting" means.


Pretty sure that every candidate running realizes that even with a slim D majority, let alone with an R one, the only path to getting anything done is getting as close to all the D senators voting for something and a few Rs too.

Everyone of them promising pink unicorns that fart sprinkles either know that they cannot deliver or are delusional, and know that anything that does get done will require bipartisan cooperation and to some degree and compromises. Or nothing gets done and you sanctimoniously blame the other side while nothing changes at all. But you stayed pure in the Holy War.

To me Trump and Biden represent two different negotiation schools of thought.

The Trump school, one that some of the Far Left seems to endorse, is position for the extreme crazy, demonize the other side, and then the other side, theory goes, meets part way as you win and they lose. In reality that does not work so well.

Biden is more the build relationships and discuss and sell the solution as win win side of the spectrum. Doesn't always work either.

I do not endorse the Trump school and in my professional life have found the Biden approach works more commonly. When it comes to the heavy lift of getting enough Ds to stay on board and getting a few Rs to come over I think Biden and his approach has the better chances than anyone else running. He has the most experience with the Party of No and he may be right that post-Trump a few more R senators will see their best self-interest in trying to appear bipartisan.

I also think, as a practical matter, that that approach is what more voters, especially in the general election, want to vote for. 565

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by asahi

I get your point about partisanship, but what would the other progressive candidates do to get legislation past McConnell's GOP Senate majority that Biden wouldn't?

If the Dems fail to win a Senate majority, they (and therefore we) are all screwed.

The nominee, whoever s/he is, will have to emphasize that if you're voting for her/him, you need to vote for Dems up and down the ticket as well, because it takes both a President and a Congress to make things happen.

But if the Dems get to 50 in the Senate, then things diverge. Some candidates (e.g. Warren, Inslee) are already out there, selling the notion that the filibuster has to go.
Others (e.g. Biden, Sanders) would keep the filibuster in place.

One plan needs 50 Dems to pass key legislation. The other plan needs 50-52 Dems plus 8-10 Republicans.

Mapped back to the Obama years, that means no stimulus, no Obamacare, no Dodd-Frank, etc.

I could be wrong, but I read his comments as a message to voters that if you want Washington to improve, we have to change the tone of the discourse first, and that maybe they should factor that when voting.

Again, recent history...

And yes, where possible, where political stars align, work together, or at least convince some fence-sitters to vote across party lines.

It's hard to see how the Dems come out of next year with more than 52 Senators. So we're talking about winning over the eighth most moderate GOP Senator. Go look up who that is, and how winnable s/he is, and how likely to go against Mitch.

I don't think Biden's under the impression that he alone can change Washington just by being nice and trying to back slap Mitch McConnell.

Unless there's a pretty large revolt within the GOP ranks, Mitch is the guy Biden will have to win over.

We've got plenty of recent history as examples to demonstrate the futility of all that you suggest Biden might have in mind. It comes down to: you're ascribing magical powers to this guy. He doesn't have any special sauce that will succeed where Obama failed.

If he comes out in favor of killing the filibuster, that would change the game: Biden would be a viable President, instead of a candidate consigning himself to failure in advance. But that's what it would take. 566

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Yes, I know exactly what "gaslighting" means.

Then you might should use it correctly.

But you stayed pure in the Holy War.

Apparently people who think, "if I do the same thing over and over again, maybe I shouldn't expect different results the next time I do it" are being "pure in the Holy War." 567

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well yes it does. It means I didn't get this quote "from the frothing batshit insane wing of the party," in your words. I got it from a news reporter at one of the more reliable news outlets. So a guy was an elector for Nader when he'd just turned 19, and apparently for you, that is what defines him 19 years later.

I think that says WAY more about you than it does about him.

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Whatever he was at 19, he seems to have been since then a mixture of libertarian and moderate Republican from the days when there were moderate Republicans.

It's clear that asahi's implication that he's one of those too-liberal-to-vote-Democratic types is total bullshit.

Originally Posted by DSeid

In that case then he should be subject to disciplinary action.

And obviously that policy is worth as much as I'd suspect it would be worth.

I know I'm coming into this late (hey, I had a busy weekend) but in reading over this thread, I've gotten back, at least in part, asahi and DSeid on this. Weigel, at the very least, severely misinterpreted Biden's words. And by that, I mean on the order of misinterpreting the phrase "He was bent on seeing her," not to mean "He was eager to see her" but as "The sight of her doubled him up!"



For better or worse, journalists still have hella power in this country, and one of them tweeting something about a presidential candidate carries a lot more weight than, say, a Doper. If the Post does indeed have such a policy, they need to have a come-to-Jesus with Weigel, and I mean yesterday. The mainstream press already has major credibility problems with a large portion of the public they ostensibly serve; now is not the time to dig the hole any deeper.

(Sorry if this is all obvious stuff. I have only half a cup of coffee in me.) 568

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If the Dems fail to win a Senate majority, they (and therefore we) are all screwed. ...

If you believe that then you want to have the D standard bearer to be the one most likely to have Senate coat tails in particular in states that are possible D pick ups ... states in which the pitch of bipartisanship in particular sells the best ...

Hmmm. Who do you think fits that best? 569

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

If you believe that then you want to have the D standard bearer to be the one most likely to have Senate coat tails in particular in states that are possible D pick ups ... states in which the pitch of bipartisanship in particular sells the best ...

Hmmm. Who do you think fits that best?

Dunno. Who's strong in Maine, Arizona, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa?

Kamala Harris, maybe? Yeah, she's probably the one you mean. 570

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If the Dems fail to win a Senate majority, they (and therefore we) are all screwed.

Then it is likely we are all screwed, because this is rather unlikely to happen. Not likely this term and not all that likely on average because of the respective demographics of the two parties. This is putting aside the likliehood that even with a bare majority, your priority of climate change is probably not going to be a major focus IMHO - U.S. political society at large just doesn't seem to be there yet*.

If the only way forward you see is control of the presidency plus majorities in both houses of the legislature, then I think you are in for perpetual heartburn. The way politics tends to whipsaw in the U.S. this is never likely to happen for anything more than two-four year stretches, if then. And most anything that is done can be undone.


* I should note that I mostly agree with you it is very important. I'm living with the increasing impact out here in CA. But I think few are willing to take any economic hit to do that much about it, since it is very much a slow-boiling-of-frogs moment. 571

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Dunno. Who's strong in Maine, Arizona, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa?

Kamala Harris, maybe? Yeah, she's probably the one you mean.

And CO.

I'm willing to hear her case that she has what it takes to do it. I started out this cycle with high hopes she'd make that case well and maybe yet she will! Hearing her before the cycle I thought maybe she had the goods. It could happen.

Biden has the current data behind him that he's the one to best do that, so far he is the one who is strong there, but that could change. He holds the position until someone else makes the convincing case that they could do it as well or better. Yeah, maybe Harris.

If you really think her, what leads you to the conclusion that she'd have coat tails in those battleground states? I'm listening. And really I'd love to be convinced. 572

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

And CO.

I'm willing to hear her case that she has what it takes to do it. I started out this cycle with high hopes she'd make that case well and maybe yet she will! Hearing her before the cycle I thought maybe she had the goods. It could happen.

Biden has the current data behind him that he's the one to best do that, so far he is the one who is strong there, but that could change. He holds the position until someone else makes the convincing case that they could do it as well or better. Yeah, maybe Harris.

If you really think her, what leads you to the conclusion that she'd have coat tails in those battleground states? I'm listening. And really I'd love to be convinced.

I knew the answer you were fishing for, but I certainly don't get the connection. When people talk about how Biden's got a better chance in the general, they talk about PA and the Midwest. But there's only one possible Dem pickup in that region in 2020, and Biden's not exactly burning it up in Iowa. So I threw out another name that seemed to make at least as much sense. Harris might help out in the Western states (AZ, MT, CO) because she's not an Easterner, and she might help out in NC and GA by virtue of being African-American.

That's all I've got, but it seems to make as much sense as anything Biden has to offer in that group of states.

General election polls nationally are generally considered meaningless more than 300 days out, and the same is surely true of state polls, so other affinities would be about all you'd have to go on, this far out. 573

[DSeid]

Biden polls higher with Black voters than she does by a wide margin. He, and that I will work together for compromise message, by polling, sells very well and in particular appeals to those voters needed to tip scales. Snapshot right now is not predictive but does show him as popular in those states and of course nationally.

Again snapshot. Maybe Harris can build. But the data is nonexistent that her being of CA would translate into coattails in MY or CO. she is behind him in her own home state and hard to blame that on less name recognition. 574

[RTFirefly]

We're talking about the general election. I'm sure either one of them would poll well with blacks in a general election. 575

[RTFirefly]

How Uncle Joe's mad negotiating skillz gave away the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

I remember this from the time (end of 2012), other than the inside stuff of course. All the Dems had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then they'd be in a position of strength, in a position to offer their own set of tax cuts, focused on the middle class and the poor, but putting the rich pretty much back where they were in 2000. Plenty of outside observers saw this; I can't take credit for any special insights.

Unsurprisingly, Harry Reid saw it too:

The extension meant that the tax cuts were now expiring in 2012, and in order to repeal all of them — to go over what the media began calling the “fiscal cliff” — all Congress had to do was nothing. That, Harry Reid told me in an interview for my new book, was precisely his plan. “I wanted to go over the cliff,” said Reid, the Senate majority leader at the time. “I thought that would have been the best thing to do because the conversation would not have been about raising taxes, which it became, it would have been about lowering taxes.”

In other words, let all the rates go up, and then bargain with Republicans to reduce taxes just for the middle class and the poor.

And somehow the Democrats blew it again. What happened?

McConnell reached out directly to Biden, calling him on the phone and explaining that Reid was refusing to be reasonable. Over the course of the day, McConnell and Biden struck a deal. “Biden gave Republicans everything they wanted in exchange for fixing the fiscal cliff problem,” the GOP operative recalled.

Years later, Reid still regrets how it went down. “If we’d have gone over the cliff, we’d have had resources to do a lot of good things in the country — infrastructure development — but it didn’t work out that way,” Reid said. Letting all the tax rates go back to pre-Bush levels would have yielded the Treasury around $3 trillion over 10 years. Instead, the deal ultimately brought in around $600 billion (or would have, if taxes hadn’t been slashed again by Republicans in 2018). Without the deal, taxes on dividend payments to the rich would have been set at 39.6 percent. Under the terms of the deal, they would be set at 20 percent, meaning that the super-wealthy would be paying lower tax rates on their passive dividend income than some working people would pay on their salaries.

I asked Reid how Biden defended the strategy that day.

“It wasn’t one that I agreed with,” he replied politely, “so you’d have to ask some of his people.”

His people declined to comment.

I wondered at the time how the Dems managed to fuck that one up. Didn't wonder about it indefinitely, because of course the GOP's response to the Dems' caving was to force further fiscal emergencies, like the debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2013. 576

[asahi]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If he comes out in favor of killing the filibuster, that would change the game: Biden would be a viable President, instead of a candidate consigning himself to failure in advance. But that's what it would take.

Well finally we agree on something: I agree that he needs to kill the filibuster. Maybe he's being coy about it. I don't think it's really a political issue until the Dems with both the WH and Senate - and preferably win the Senate with more than 55 Senators. 577

[CarnalK]

He can't kill the filibuster. For some reason, some people thnk the Senate will follow the president's orders on that. 578

[asahi]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

He can't kill the filibuster. For some reason, some people thnk the Senate will follow the president's orders on that.

I think it's obvious that we mean under the right circumstances (i.e. Dem majority). 579

[CarnalK]

You pretty explicitly said that, so yeah that's obvious and doesn't change anything I said. The President doesn't decide Senate procedure and getting rid of the filibuster will not be decided by a President. 580

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DSeid

... To me Trump and Biden represent two different negotiation schools of thought.

The Trump school, one that some of the Far Left seems to endorse, is position for the extreme crazy, demonize the other side, and then the other side, theory goes, meets part way as you win and they lose. In reality that does not work so well.

Biden is more the build relationships and discuss and sell the solution as win win side of the spectrum. Doesn't always work either.

I do not endorse the Trump school and in my professional life have found the Biden approach works more commonly. When it comes to the heavy lift of getting enough Ds to stay on board and getting a few Rs to come over I think Biden and his approach has the better chances than anyone else running. He has the most experience with the Party of No and he may be right that post-Trump a few more R senators will see their best self-interest in trying to appear bipartisan.

I also think, as a practical matter, that that approach is what more voters, especially in the general election, want to vote for.

Yes, there are chunks of the voting population---on both the right and the left---who respond eagerly to the politics of resentment. We are the noble and pure; they are the corrupt and evil!

Those who prefer considering opponents humans with whom deals should be sought, exist on both left and right, too. These two (plus) horrible years have demonstrated that there are registered Republicans who genuinely believe in the rule of law (instead of the inherent authoritarianism of us-versus-them) --though, sadly, few of them are currently office-holders.

Are Us-versus-Them fans on the left more numerous than Make-a-Deal fans on the left? As the field of presidential candidates shrinks, we'll get a better idea. Even the debates, this week, will be illuminating. We'll hear the clues in the language of the candidates---and what's picked up by the social media will tell us what's resonating. 581

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

... Even the debates, this week, will be illuminating. We'll hear the clues in the language of the candidates---and what's picked up by the social media will tell us what's resonating.

Only copying the portion I disagree with. What gets picked up on social media is nowhere near as good of a barometer of what is resonating overall as many within social media and of the pundit class credit it with.

Remember the social media explosion over the Biden's unwanted too friendly to the person touch? Enough on social media that the thread here was asking if his campaign was over before it began. Actual impact, actual amount it resonated with the voting public? Not so much. Obviously.

Right now he has the Make-A-Deal rejection of Us-versus-Them lane pretty much all alone. Booker had I think started out trying to inhabit it as well but Biden sucked all the oxygen out of that space so he is trying, so far without much success, to find another branding message. So long as there are several staying in playing hard the othering populist play he can prevail even if the Us-versus-Them fans are more numerous, as they'll split them. And by polling they are not.

Originally Posted by Morning Consult

78% of Democratic voters said they prefer a candidate who can heal the division in the country.

15% want someone who will fight back, break the rules and move the country in a different direction.

When asked to choose between two stances, nearly 4 in 5 Democrats in the latest poll, conducted March 1-3 among 1,993 registered voters, said they felt the party needed to nominate “a candidate who can heal the division in our country by bringing people with different views together to make compromise.” By comparison, 15 percent said they thought Democrats need “a candidate who will fight back and is willing to break the rules to move the country in a different direction.”

You wouldn't think it by reading social media or by listening to most candidates branding messages though. 582

[pjacks]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

These two (plus) horrible years have demonstrated that there are registered Republicans who genuinely believe in the rule of law (instead of the inherent authoritarianism of us-versus-them) --though, sadly, few of them are currently office-holders.

...in what world? Trump has the highest intraparty approval rating of any president of the modern era, aside from W right after 9/11. 583

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

You pretty explicitly said that, so yeah that's obvious and doesn't change anything I said. The President doesn't decide Senate procedure and getting rid of the filibuster will not be decided by a President.

And legislation has to be initiated and passed by the House and Senate, but funny how the proposed legislation that a President runs on, usually winds up getting taken up by the Congress. But thank you for reminding us of what your middle school civics textbook says.

It's gonna take time to sell Dem Senators on the notion of killing the filibuster, and it's going to take a Dem nominee willing to invest time and energy in doing that selling, or it doesn't happen. 584

[septimus]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

How Uncle Joe's mad negotiating skillz gave away the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

I remember this from the time (end of 2012), other than the inside stuff of course. All the Dems had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then they'd be in a position of strength, in a position to offer their own set of tax cuts, focused on the middle class and the poor, but putting the rich pretty much back where they were in 2000. Plenty of outside observers saw this; I can't take credit for any special insights.

Unsurprisingly, Harry Reid saw it too:

And somehow the Democrats blew it again. What happened?

I wondered at the time how the Dems managed to fuck that one up. Didn't wonder about it indefinitely, because of course the GOP's response to the Dems' caving was to force further fiscal emergencies, like the debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2013.

Thank you, RTFirefly, for relating that story. I was unaware of it. It does increase my misgivings about Biden. 585

[asahi]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

How Uncle Joe's mad negotiating skillz gave away the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

I remember this from the time (end of 2012), other than the inside stuff of course. All the Dems had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then they'd be in a position of strength, in a position to offer their own set of tax cuts, focused on the middle class and the poor, but putting the rich pretty much back where they were in 2000. Plenty of outside observers saw this; I can't take credit for any special insights.

Unsurprisingly, Harry Reid saw it too:

And somehow the Democrats blew it again. What happened?

I wondered at the time how the Dems managed to fuck that one up. Didn't wonder about it indefinitely, because of course the GOP's response to the Dems' caving was to force further fiscal emergencies, like the debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2013.

Ryan Grim? The same Ryan Grim who arrogantly refused to believe that Trump could win and accused Nate Silver of putting his thumb on the scales to make a an already-decided presidential election more interesting? That Ryan Grim who days later got totally owned and was forced to apologize and admit he had no fucking clue what he was talking about? Ryan Grim has a history of writing left wing rage porn, so color me unimpressed.

The backside to that story is that before that, Joe Biden was the outgoing senator who was able to convince Susan Collins and Arlen Specter to break a filibuster so that Barack Obama could get one of his signature pieces of legislation -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- done, which by the way is pretty much one of the reasons why we started to recover and why we've had 9 years of sustained economic growth. Biden also got Specter (who became disgusted with the politics of intransigence and later became a moderate Democrat) to support the ACA.

Look, you can pick Joe Biden's record as a progressive apart if you wish, but what are other senators going to do to actually persuade other senators and reps to occasionally join them when there's a tight vote? Moreover, don't forget that some Democrats come from moderate or even fairly conservative districts. How would Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren deal with that - tell them to leave the party? That probably won't end well. 586

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by asahi

Ryan Grim? The same Ryan Grim who arrogantly refused to believe that Trump could win and accused Nate Silver of putting his thumb on the scales to make a an already-decided presidential election more interesting? That Ryan Grim who days later got totally owned and was forced to apologize and admit he had no fucking clue what he was talking about?

Oh, you mean like half the known universe.

The backside to that story is that before that, Joe Biden was the outgoing senator who was able to convince Susan Collins and Arlen Specter to break a filibuster so that Barack Obama could get one of his signature pieces of legislation -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- done

Which is the perfect illustration of the limits of Biden's approach to confronting GOP intransigence. With our economy in free fall, losing 700,000 jobs a month, clearly headed towards the worst cratering of our economy since the 1930s, a cratering that people were already blaming on the Republicans, and would have continued to do so had they blocked any action - he could only barely get the three votes he needed to break the filibuster, and to get Collins' or Snowe's vote, I can't remember which, he needed to cut the already-too-small stimulus by another $100B.

In all likelihood, Biden needs to pass legislation in the future, there won't be a gun pointed at both the GOP's and the nation's head. He will hopefully never again have such optimal circumstances for persuading Republicans to go along.

How would Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren deal with that - tell them to leave the party?

Your lack of interest in having a serious debate comes through loud and clear. 587

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

And legislation has to be initiated and passed by the House and Senate, but funny how the proposed legislation that a President runs on, usually winds up getting taken up by the Congress. But thank you for reminding us of what your middle school civics textbook says.

It's gonna take time to sell Dem Senators on the notion of killing the filibuster, and it's going to take a Dem nominee willing to invest time and energy in doing that selling, or it doesn't happen.

I think changing Senate procedure is different than taking up legislation a president ran on. I doubt they'll be anywhere near as cooperative nor will they think many voters were voting on that campaign promise. 588

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by septimus

Thank you, RTFirefly, for relating that story. I was unaware of it. It does increase my misgivings about Biden.

You're welcome!

I'm thinking about what might be reasonable criteria to demonstrate Biden's negotiating skills. The legislation would have to be legislation that Democrats wanted more badly than Republicans, that liberals wanted more badly than conservatives or segregationist Dixiecrats. Because it's easy to negotiate with the other side to give them what they want more than you do.

So anti-busing legislation wouldn't count. Nor would tough-on-crime legislation.

I agree with asahi that the ARRA counts. But to rephrase what I've already said, ARRA came up under the worst imaginable circumstances for Republicans to say 'no', but all but three of them did exactly that, despite Biden's amazing skills at persuasion.

So IMHO, three is probably about the maximum number of Republicans that can be persuaded by Biden under ideal circumstances. Maybe four, by some fluke. But five is right out - and if we still have the filibuster, Biden's going to need to persuade eight or ten Republicans.

This is why the filibuster has to go. And there's a LOT of resistance to that among Senate Democrats. I just don't see it happening unless the Democratic nominee is an aggressive advocate of killing the filibuster. 589

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

I think changing Senate procedure is different than taking up legislation a president ran on. I doubt they'll be anywhere near as cooperative nor will they think many voters were voting on that campaign promise.

OK then, we're screwed. So then nothing matters anyway, right? Then why is this argument worth your time?

While being fully cognizant of the obstacles, I'm not quite ready to give up hope yet. 590

[CarnalK]

Wtf? Nothing matters because I don't think the Senate will give up the filibuster? What's with the drama queen act? 591

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Wtf? Nothing matters because I don't think the Senate will give up the filibuster? What's with the drama queen act?

What part of my post #589 do you disagree with, then? 592

[CarnalK]

I think the advocacy of the President will matter little, the last sentence of post 589. The Senate will abandon the filibuster if they think it will make them look foolish/impotent if they don't and that foolish look outweighs the protections the filibuster gives them. 593

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DSeid

...

What gets picked up on social media is nowhere near as good of a barometer of what is resonating overall as many within social media and of the pundit class credit it with.

Remember the social media explosion over the Biden's unwanted too friendly to the person touch? Enough on social media that the thread here was asking if his campaign was over before it began. Actual impact, actual amount it resonated with the voting public? Not so much. Obviously.

I've heard several on-air reporters and anchors on CNN and MSNBC refer casually to the fact that whatever blows up on Twitter and Facebook gets mentioned on the television news shows. (Won't look for a cite now but will post one when I get the chance.)

The point is not that the things that blow up on social media become major, ongoing stories everywhere---the point was that those things do get mentioned in the wider-reaching platforms. They then have the chance to become major, ongoing stores everywhere---if they resonate with the broader audience. If not, not. The variance is largely due to the differing demographics of Twitter as compared with CNN (etc.).

Originally Posted by DSeid

Right now he has the Make-A-Deal rejection of Us-versus-Them lane pretty much all alone. Booker had I think started out trying to inhabit it as well but Biden sucked all the oxygen out of that space so he is trying, so far without much success, to find another branding message. So long as there are several staying in playing hard the othering populist play he can prevail even if the Us-versus-Them fans are more numerous, as they'll split them. And by polling they are not.
You wouldn't think it by reading social media or by listening to most candidates branding messages though.

Interesting polling. Yes, the overall-Democratic tendency to elevate Make-a-Deal thinking over Us-Versus-Them thinking would not be reflected on Twitter or the other major social media platforms. Twitter, and I guess Facebook and Instagram (neither of which I do), prioritize getting the high score and gaining dominance and other highly-competitive attitudes.

Cooperation and comity are not values well-represented in the social media, because the social media are structured to reward aggression.

So there will always be something of a mismatch between "left-leaning people" and "left-leaning people on social media." 594

[DSeid]

This 2017 Gallup poll may also be of interest to you.

The preference for being willing to compromise is huge and the only group that does not prefer "compromise" over "stick to beliefs" is the very conservative crowd. Liberals prefer it 63 to 14%; moderates 60 to 16%; very liberal 55 to 17%; and even conservative 43 to 27%.

There is quite something of a mismatch. FWIW I think MSM is also structure to reward aggression, or at least covering conflict. It is more exciting and gets more clicks and eyeballs. It's why Trump got so much free media in the 2016 cycle. 595

[asahi]

I think Biden has probably survived the bad press so far. The bigger question is can he get this week's melee without sustaining too much damage. 596

[DSeid]

The very nature of the crowded stage and limited time per candidate makes too much damage unlikely. Future debates when Warren and Harris can speak longer and engage in back and forths are when damage is more possible. But their strengths won’t show so well in this set up. 597

[SlackerInc]

As DSeid has hinted at, paying at least lip service to compromise and working across the aisle is an essential political ploy. Whether sincerely trying to compromise is good strategy is a separate question.

Since people keep talking about the filibuster, I'll just mention again that I'm against doing away with it. 598

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DSeid

... FWIW I think MSM is also structure to reward aggression, or at least covering conflict. It is more exciting and gets more clicks and eyeballs. It's why Trump got so much free media in the 2016 cycle.

Oh, absolutely---'if it bleeds, it leads' is an age-old principle of journalism.

Humans love watching conflict. (Participating in it....that's less universally-craved.)

Along those lines: the question of whether all on stage tonight (except, presumably, Williamson, who professes to be about 'love') will attempt as many attacks on Biden as possible, practically guarantees high ratings for this night. The numbers are likely to be substantially higher than last night's numbers, mainly because of the chance of clashes and shade-throwing.

Humans. *sigh* 599

[RitterSport]

Joe Biden's latest quote: "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

The guy is a gaffe machine and I think may be torn apart in the general. I wish he and Sanders would step aside and make room for some of the younger candidates. Both of them have too many targets for the hate machine. 600