Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:33 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Yeah, if you're wondering why Sanders can't break above 30-35%, this is a good part of it. No one voting Democratic is "scared" of poor people having health care or affordable housing or any of that stuff. People disagree about the route to take and it turns into "Well, I guess you're just a neoliberal Corporate Democrat who hates poor people and wants them all to starve and die!" and that leads right into "Ok, time to tune this weirdo out."

The messaging on this stuff is just awful the moment it touches anyone and fails to instantly convert them.
Honestly that says way more about you than it does me. As for "instantly," maybe you ought to consider that SOME of us have been on this exact same thought train for DECADES and are, quite frankly, really sick and tired of watching our fellow citizens continue to buy the bullshit, drink the kool-aid and dive back into that burning barn like freaked out horses losing their shit. The difference this time around is that we are running out of time to turn the climate change trend around and we're getting awfully close to passing the point of no return, which means many of us are dealing with the reality that our great grandkids are likely to die screaming on a burning planet and yeah, that does tend to reduce our civility just a tad. On the other hand, since we're processing and sitting with that now we won't be freaking out when it comes because we already saw it coming and made our peace and are intent on living out what remains of our lives in as much quiet and comfort as we can eke out while the rest of the planet is thrashing and having their death throes. It sucks to be me right now but it's gonna suck way harder for you later on. C'est la vie and shit.
  #52  
Old 03-08-2020, 10:06 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Honestly that says way more about you than it does me.
Sure, whatever gets you through the primary.
  #53  
Old 03-09-2020, 04:20 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,115
Biden will be excellent at one hugely important part of the job, restoring the alliances of the US and shoring up the global economic system after the turmoil inflicted by Trump. The level of experience he brings is astonishing and probably unprecedented in US history. Biden was cutting deals with Gromyko in the late 70s and he is literally cited as an example by negotiation experts.

As far as getting major legislation, his prospects are bleak but that is true of any Democratic president. Moving sharply to the left is simply not a solution not matter how satisfying it might be for some Democrats. It will simply mean more swing seats lost and stronger GOP resistance. The best hope for the Democrats is a president who is at least moderately popular in purple state/districts and able to apply a bit of pressure on a few GOP legislators. While I wouldn't hold high hopes, Biden will be less bad at this than Bernie and most other Democratic contenders.
  #54  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:16 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The thing is, a "return to normal" requires a President who's very far outside of the normal. The Republicans have already made big changes to this country, by taking unprecedented actions. Reversing those changes will require unprecedented responses. A President who considers himself bound by precedent will not be able to return to normality.
While I could conceivably see that in the abstract, I can't make it work with what Trump actually did. He issued executive orders, which a normal president would also issue. He didn't staff agencies, allowing them to flounder and a normal president would staff them. He dropped a previous treaty, but a normal president could enter a treaty. He got rid of the white house press briefings and barred journalist access, but a normal president would have briefings and allow access. He destroyed foreign relations, but a normal president would try to establish them.

He did also appoint someone to the Supreme Court. That would require a radical change to fix: increasing the number of judges. But the president does not have the power to do that. Congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices. So the only way that happens is a supermajority in both houses, and then actually getting the Dems to agree it's a good idea. The only way a single man could be the difference is to convince congress, and Biden's got more pull with other Democrats than Bernie does.

The only president I can think of that Biden (or Sanders) needs to not follow is the one by Johnson when he pardoned Nixon. But I do not see anyone who isn't a Republican pardoning Trump.

So what am I missing that Trump did that a normal, precedent-following president would not be able to undo that a maverick, precedent-ignoring president would be able to do?

Last edited by BigT; 03-09-2020 at 05:18 AM.
  #55  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:23 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,101
It would be very hard to get Americans unified behind a radical agenda: the pain just isn't there. At the time of the French Revolution a large portion of Frenchmen were experiencing actual hunger pains. Among concerned Americans today, many mostly wish they could afford to replace their two-year old iPhone. (Look how OWS fizzled out.)

Inslee might have been a good choice, but he ran exclusively on climate change, an issue many Americans don't care about. I had hopes for Elizabeth Warren; I still don't understand why she fizzled out. But finally, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you campaign until November with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had. Biden has severe flaws, but not as many as Bernie. With Biden the Ds may get the WH and the Senate; with Bernie they'd get neither.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
... This article is pretty comprehensive regarding the massive problems Biden poses to anyone thinking of voting the guy in--up to and including that "return to normalcy" bullshit.
Let's focus on one charge: that Biden was a cheerleader for Cheney's War in Iraq. (First let me ask a question: Do I remember correctly that there was a very large American force already in the desert south of Iraq BEFORE the AUMF was voted on? I Googled and Wiki'ed to refresh my memory on this but my Googlefu was lacking.)

Frankly I get tired of these claims that Clinton or Biden were war-mongers for that vote. A majority of D Senators voted for the AUMF. And Biden, like Clinton, went on record saying the hope was to avoid war. It hardly seems a far-fetched hope: Iraq knew they were doomed in a shooting war and would have found some accommodation but Cheney-Bush rushed into War.

Read the following excerpts and then say if it is reasonable to consider Biden a cheerleader for the Cheney-Bush adventure:
Quote:
Biden supported a narrower war power authorization prioritizing the WMDs. He joined Republicans Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, the latter of whom would go on to be Obama’s defense secretary years later, in crafting an amendment to the war authorization to limit the scope of Bush’s powers.

But another Democrat foiled that effort: Rep. Dick Gephardt, the House minority leader, struck a deal with Bush to authorize the use of military force in a war — a move that angered Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate, including Biden. Gephardt, at the time weighing a presidential run, was accused of playing politics.
...
Biden said in a July 2003 interview with CNN:

I’m not suggesting there are not successes. I want us to succeed there, but everybody you will speak to who knows anything about this will tell you we need another 5,000 — our own people tell us we need another 5,000 European police officers on the ground now to help train their police. We need another 30,000 forces from other countries to help alleviate the strain on our forces. ... If we don’t make real progress very soon, what will happen is we’ll lose the support of the Iraqi people, and then there will be hell to pay. All we’re trying to do is get us to face up to that straight-up now, make the changes necessary, and let’s win this peace.
...
"For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam," Biden said July 2003. "And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon. We went to war with too few troops. We went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now."
In 2003 Biden challenged the Bush team's candor.
  #56  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:56 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
It isn't so much that I want Bernie, I want America to want Bernie, or what he more or less stands for. Recent evidence is that we do not.
This. As Upper Midwesterners, you and I get this, and many fellow Dopers do not.
  #57  
Old 03-09-2020, 07:21 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,205
I think there are some unrealistic expectations of what a president can do. We've seen that a president can and did act destructively pretty much on his own, naming cabinet members who are incompetent and/or hostile to the agencies they lead. Actually getting something positive done is a bit harder. I don't believe Sanders has any magical powers to take us from where we are to Medicare for all and no student debt. That just isn't realistic. Sanders has shown no willingness to negotiate with others or to accept anything that isn't 100% what he wants. You don't pass legislation that way, which is why he got so few(if any) bills passed into law. It's not going to be all rainbows and unicorns the instant President Sanders takes the oath.

What I expect from Biden is: restore trust among our allies, don't kneel before Putin, nominate qualified liberal to moderate justices, shore up the ACA, get a new Voting Rights Act passed, and put some more fairness in the tax code. Not Medicare for all instantly- maybe a baby step is to reduce the age to 64, Better to take a small step at a time and not go all Thelma and Louise. Most of all, have a president who isn't batshit crazy, doesn't tweet on the toilet, reads security briefings, and doesn't make everything about him. I'm more confident that Biden has the ability to act as president for everybody, not just those who voted for him, than I am of Sanders.
  #58  
Old 03-09-2020, 07:23 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
The left-most progressive wing of the Democratic party appears to have been roundly rejected by the majority of lib/prog/dem voters, i.e. Biden vs. Sanders. To continue to insist that a very progressive candidate (like Sanders, for example) would have better luck in advancing progressive policies faced with a mixed Dem/Rep congress and electorate is simply a denial of reality.

It's a bit sad and ironic that the wokest of progressives refuse to accept "no" for an answer.
This bears repeating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because your attacks on him here are increasing trumps chance of winning, that's why.
Indeed, like Bernie's attack ads. Tell me why I should vote for Bernie, not why I shouldn't vote for Biden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
This. As Upper Midwesterners, you and I get this, and many fellow Dopers do not.
As an upper Midwesterner -- is it the Scandinavian influence? -- I love what Bernie stands for, but I find him unpleasant and not a good instrument of change.
  #59  
Old 03-09-2020, 07:39 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,330
Yup.

Though I grew up 20 miles from Brooklyn, and lived in Vermont for most of one year, so I also appreciate Bernie’s style for what it is, and I value his passion and commitment — of many if his fans, too — to truly important causes. He will continue to be an important voice toward a better future for all of us.

But for the next several months...we MUST all get behind Biden.
  #60  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:13 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Not sure who, exactly, you think you're referring to here unless you're actually Chris Matthews IRL and honestly believe that guillotines in Central Park are a thing that progressives intend to implement. You're hysterical and nowhere near the actual reality of Bernie, who actually, no shit, asks people at his rallies to look around them and imagine fighting just as hard to help those they don't know as they would fight to help their friends and family. So far Trump and Biden both only say they want to help the rich to help themselves to whatever crumbs we have left. If that doesn't scare you, but Bernie does, then there's way more going on in your head than psych meds can fix.
Yeah, I'm the one being hysterical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
You could stop babbling and freaking out for a minute and actually THINK about why it scares you so to think that healthcare, housing and a living wage are human rights that should be guaranteed to every citizen. That our resources and productivity would be better spent mending our broken infrastructure and making our lives better rather than spending it all on endless regime change wars and killing brown people in countries we have no business interfering with. That the billions we spend every year propping up extractive and destructive industries would be better spent ensuring every child has enough to eat and a solid education. That rehabilitation is better than mindless punitive incarceration. That endless debt slavery is a terrible way to expect millions of people to spend their lives.
Nothing about Bernie scares me. I find he's been less than forthright about what his policies will actually cost in taxes and who the lion's share of taxes will fall upon (hint: lower and middle class). I'm all in for the kinds of meaningful changes it will take to achieve a more just society. And you have nothing to teach me about living in a social democracy. I was raised in one and lived half my adult life in one. I've actually put my tax dollars where you've merely paid lip service so far. So don't lecture me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
That the right to fair, free elections without interference and ratfucking is something our founding fathers were trying really hard to guarantee to us. That endless surveillance and police state control have no business in a free society.
You should put that in a strongly worded letter to the Trump administration and cc: Putin. Otherwise, I don't know why this is relevant here. But since you brought it up, perhaps you can show us where the founding fathers talked about democratic socialism. I was pretty sure they were free markets capitalism types, with a little slavery on the side. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not from around these parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Seriously, if the very idea of the American people having those things give you the skeery vapors then I don't think you and I are actually a part of the same species.
The "American People" given the choice between a moderate and a socialist, chose the moderate. Maybe take it up with them and stop projecting "skeery vapors" on people who don't see things your way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Honestly that says way more about you than it does me. As for "instantly," maybe you ought to consider that SOME of us have been on this exact same thought train for DECADES and are, quite frankly, really sick and tired of watching our fellow citizens continue to buy the bullshit, drink the kool-aid and dive back into that burning barn like freaked out horses losing their shit. The difference this time around is that we are running out of time to turn the climate change trend around and we're getting awfully close to passing the point of no return, which means many of us are dealing with the reality that our great grandkids are likely to die screaming on a burning planet and yeah, that does tend to reduce our civility just a tad. On the other hand, since we're processing and sitting with that now we won't be freaking out when it comes because we already saw it coming and made our peace and are intent on living out what remains of our lives in as much quiet and comfort as we can eke out while the rest of the planet is thrashing and having their death throes. It sucks to be me right now but it's gonna suck way harder for you later on.
Again, who is being hysterical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
C'est la vie and shit.
Mostly the latter, tho.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 03-09-2020 at 08:14 AM.
  #61  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:26 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Dodgy Dude View Post
How about this for an accomplishment:

1. Biden becomes the nominee.

2. Names Hillary as his running mate.

3. Wins the election.

4. Steps down for "health reasons" (aka dementia.

5. Hillary becomes the first woman president of the United States - thanks to Joe Biden.
Problems arise between 2. and 3. Which IMO mitigates against its being much of an accomplishment.

The SDMB and progressives in general appear to be limiting their expectations, which is good because they will not be disappointed. If Biden wins the general, which is by no means certain, they will be happy if he is not Trump. That, I believe Biden can accomplish. If he can't accomplish anything else, the rest of the country may not be so easily satisfied.

If global warming and health care and whatever other issues are as critical and urgent as Democrats, especially progressive Democrats claim, achieving nothing more than not being Trump is not going to improve the situation. As Iran announces its development of a nuclear weapon and the COVID-19 virus continues to spread and the economy goes into recession and health care costs continue to rise and Biden blathers cluelessly thru his administration, a diminution of tweets and a failure to enact - well, anything - is going to be cold comfort.

Regards,
Shodan
  #62  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:35 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,205
If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will because the current administration tore up an agreement simply because it was made during a black man's administration. Global warming cannot be addressed as long as the current administration denies it exists. If Biden were to do nothing except defeat this piece of shit in November, it still makes his administration an unqualified success. If he puts Don the Con in prison, then put old Joe on Mount Rushmore.
  #63  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:37 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If global warming and health care and whatever other issues are as critical and urgent as Democrats, especially progressive Democrats claim, achieving nothing more than not being Trump is not going to improve the situation. As Iran announces its development of a nuclear weapon and the COVID-19 virus continues to spread and the economy goes into recession and health care costs continue to rise and Biden blathers cluelessly thru his administration, a diminution of tweets and a failure to enact - well, anything - is going to be cold comfort.

Regards,
Shodan
But, WHAT IF, simply not being Trump, allows the U.S. to re-establish good relationships with our traditional allies. Thus allowing for the re-negotiation of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement. While also addressing the COVID-19 epidemic in a more coherent and competent manner without idiotic statements at the CDC, which restores confidence in the markets and the recession is either mitigated or avoided?

That's another way to go, right? Wouldn't even require an April miracle (just a bit of luck in November).
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 03-09-2020 at 08:39 AM.
  #64  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:46 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Responding to the radicalism of Trump requires an equally radical leftwing counterattack, otherwise the GOP will just become ever more insane and in 4 years we'll get a Tom Cotton presidency or some other such craziness. Put another way, right now the highest order issue for Democrats when they regain power should be a scorched-earth push to enact institutional reforms that would militate against the likelihood of another Trump. Even now, leftwing pundits are arguing for such ideas outside of the direct political space - see David Faris's 'It's Time to Fight Dirty' or Dan Pfeifer's 'Untrumping America' for examples. Things like SCOTUS expansion, DC/PR statehood, filibuster abolitionment, mandatory voting, etc. are so critical to that endeavor, yet Biden will be oblivious to them.
Ah yeah, the Radical Republicans' approach to Reconstruction. Worked well back in the 1860s and 1870s, didn't it?

Personally I think that's the WORST possible thing the Democrats could do. You're just making the pendulum swing further than before, rather than trying to damp it out if you ramrod through a bunch of ill-considered legislation.

I think it's also a colossal misread of the nation to assume that if you win vs. Trump, that it's some kind of mandate for left-wing policies. IT'S NOT. It's a big mandate to get rid of Trump and his bullshit, that's it.
  #65  
Old 03-09-2020, 09:26 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,246
If Biden is elected but the Republicans retain control of the Senate (assume Democrats retain House) he might or might not be *relatively* more effective in getting a few things done legislatively than Obama, or Trump, did after losing Congressional majorities. But basically not much, just like the former two did not after losing their two-house majority. The Republicans refused to consider Merritt Garland, but Obama still got some lower court judges through a GOP Senate more liberal than a GOP president would have nominated, Biden would probably do the same. Trump since 2019 has still had Senate majority so able to name judges at all levels pretty much without considering what the Democrats think of them, so the comparison would be closer to Obama post 2010 election, again assuming the GOP holds the Senate.

Plus the executive branch by itself can do various things, again see either Obama or Trump admins after loss of two house Congressional majority.

But partisans looking for big shifts, and feeling their party's president is kind of half hearted to begin with, are probably going to tend to view that president as 'ineffective' if he or she lacks Congressional majorities. In that respect the recent GOP example is GW Bush, widely viewed as weak in the GOP base later on. Obama and Trump were/are both viewed as fighters against a recalcitrant opposition so kept their party bases generally satisfied despite lack of significant legislative accomplishment after losing their two house majorities in 2 yrs. I think Biden might tend toward Bush's fate in terms of view of his own party's base's opinion, since they aren't big fans of his to begin with, he's mainly just the handiest instrument to get rid of Trump.

If Biden sweeps in with majorities in both Houses, different story but depends obviously how big a majority and how dependent on 'moderate' Democrats. Seems hard to me (besides general difficulty predicting the future) to say anything about what Biden would get done, besides strictly executive branch functions, without saying what Congress you assume he'd face.

Last edited by Corry El; 03-09-2020 at 09:29 AM.
  #66  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:00 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Ah yeah, the Radical Republicans' approach to Reconstruction. Worked well back in the 1860s and 1870s, didn't it?

Personally I think that's the WORST possible thing the Democrats could do. You're just making the pendulum swing further than before, rather than trying to damp it out if you ramrod through a bunch of ill-considered legislation.

I think it's also a colossal misread of the nation to assume that if you win vs. Trump, that it's some kind of mandate for left-wing policies. IT'S NOT. It's a big mandate to get rid of Trump and his bullshit, that's it.
The problem with that approach is that all it would effectively result in would be perpetual unilateral Democratic surrender. The worst possible outcome here would be the GOP becoming increasingly radical and actually achieving their political goals while Democrats continue to cling to milquetoast moderation that never produces results. For example, you can see this now in the Republican lock on judicial power through blatant theft (Merrick Garland) even though the GOP itself continues to receive fewer votes and represent fewer people than Democrats.

It's all fine and dandy for Biden to talk about how terrific his proposed public option would be, but unless he is willing to steamroll the opposition and undertake the radical approaches to pass his plan, then Biden's talk will never amount to anything and Democrats will routinely be annihilated in elections.
  #67  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:11 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
The problem with that approach is that all it would effectively result in would be perpetual unilateral Democratic surrender. The worst possible outcome here would be the GOP becoming increasingly radical and actually achieving their political goals while Democrats continue to cling to milquetoast moderation that never produces results. For example, you can see this now in the Republican lock on judicial power through blatant theft (Merrick Garland) even though the GOP itself continues to receive fewer votes and represent fewer people than Democrats.

It's all fine and dandy for Biden to talk about how terrific his proposed public option would be, but unless he is willing to steamroll the opposition and undertake the radical approaches to pass his plan, then Biden's talk will never amount to anything and Democrats will routinely be annihilated in elections.
All things being equal, what legal executive action do you believe Sanders can take, and succeed, that Biden cannot or will not?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #68  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:18 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,299
The problem with Reconstruction wasn't that it went too far; it was that it didn't go far enough, and as a result, we're still fighting that damned war 150 years later. Yes, the North should have been more merciful. But "more merciful" would have meant confiscating plantations and giving them to the former slaves, not "Oh, you people who were oppressed can go on being just slightly less oppressed". With a just Reconstruction, states flying the Confederate battle standard over their statehouses would be interpreted as what it actually means, that those states are still in open treason against the federal government, and so have all of their federal representation removed.
  #69  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:19 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,557
Quote:
...but unless he is willing to steamroll the opposition....
We first have to be able to "steamroll" the opposition. Nerf bats don't count. Its the people, or nothing.

Last edited by elucidator; 03-09-2020 at 10:19 AM.
  #70  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:39 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But, WHAT IF, simply not being Trump, allows the U.S. to re-establish good relationships with our traditional allies. Thus allowing for the re-negotiation of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement. While also addressing the COVID-19 epidemic in a more coherent and competent manner without idiotic statements at the CDC, which restores confidence in the markets and the recession is either mitigated or avoided?

That's another way to go, right? Wouldn't even require an April miracle (just a bit of luck in November).
Well, no offense but you are assuming that "not-Trump" will automatically be able to achieve things. I am talking about a situation where it isn't Trump on the other side of the negotiating table, and Iran doesn't abide by the treaty any more than when it was Europe, or the COVID-10 virus spreads the way viruses spread even when people say the right things. Etc.

"Everything would have been worse if it had been Trump" is an argument you can make, but you can't necessarily assume it. If Biden and the Democrats take over, and immediately things start heading downhill - just because Trump is no longer in charge of the handbasket doesn't comfort everyone about our destination.

Regards,
Shodan
  #71  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:43 AM
ISiddiqui is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,018
So one of the main things the next President will be doing is rebuilding the federal government. There are agencies that are running on fumes right now as high level people have quit and their roles haven't been filled (either due to the hiring freeze or because the Administration didn't care to hire anyone for the role). I do think that's going to take up a substantial period of the next President's time - heck they'll have to basically recreate the EPA from the ground up. I think Biden can do a good job there and that is something that doesn't require that much from the Senate aside from approving Cabinet officials.
  #72  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:53 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Well, no offense but you are assuming that "not-Trump" will automatically be able to achieve things. I am talking about a situation where it isn't Trump on the other side of the negotiating table, and Iran doesn't abide by the treaty any more than when it was Europe, or the COVID-10 virus spreads the way viruses spread even when people say the right things. Etc.
And the earth might get hit with an asteroid the day after Biden's inauguration. That would suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Everything would have been worse if it had been Trump" is an argument you can make, but you can't necessarily assume it. If Biden and the Democrats take over, and immediately things start heading downhill - just because Trump is no longer in charge of the handbasket doesn't comfort everyone about our destination.

Regards,
Shodan
Sure I can. Given Trump's quotidian incompetence, one can argue that a President Romney would have a positive stabilizing effect on the nation.

But say you're right. Say things start heading downhill after Biden and Dems take over. Then we'll potentially have someone new to blame. But for now, we have Trump to blame. And for demonstrably good reasons.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #73  
Old 03-09-2020, 11:09 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Yes, this is why progressives want Bernie.
Well, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that the states of Delusion and Denial have no delegates.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #74  
Old 03-09-2020, 11:56 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Biden will be excellent at one hugely important part of the job, restoring the alliances of the US and shoring up the global economic system after the turmoil inflicted by Trump. The level of experience he brings is astonishing and probably unprecedented in US history. Biden was cutting deals with Gromyko in the late 70s and he is literally cited as an example by negotiation experts.

As far as getting major legislation, his prospects are bleak but that is true of any Democratic president. Moving sharply to the left is simply not a solution not matter how satisfying it might be for some Democrats. It will simply mean more swing seats lost and stronger GOP resistance. The best hope for the Democrats is a president who is at least moderately popular in purple state/districts and able to apply a bit of pressure on a few GOP legislators. While I wouldn't hold high hopes, Biden will be less bad at this than Bernie and most other Democratic contenders.
Good points.

Yes, along with winning the White House, the Dems need to get some senate seats to get things done.
  #75  
Old 03-09-2020, 12:07 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Biden will be excellent at one hugely important part of the job, restoring the alliances of the US and shoring up the global economic system after the turmoil inflicted by Trump. The level of experience he brings is astonishing and probably unprecedented in US history. Biden was cutting deals with Gromyko in the late 70s and he is literally cited as an example by negotiation experts.
Missed it earlier and also was not aware of this bit of Biden's history in diplomacy. Thanks for this.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #76  
Old 03-09-2020, 12:35 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
All things being equal, what legal executive action do you believe Sanders can take, and succeed, that Biden cannot or will not?
All else being equal, it all comes down to actually *prioritizing* institutional reform, which is something that Biden will never, ever do simply because he does not view any of the Democrats' structural barriers as genuine problems, or, if he does, he views such issues as holy grails that Democrats will just have to live with and never affirmatively fix.

It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters. If Biden does help the Democrats regain the Senate, great!

But even if he does, I do not believe a newfound Democratic Senate will matter because Biden will be unwilling to prioritize *doing* anything with Senate majority power.
  #77  
Old 03-09-2020, 12:43 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
All else being equal, it all comes down to actually *prioritizing* institutional reform, which is something that Biden will never, ever do simply because he does not view any of the Democrats' structural barriers as genuine problems, or, if he does, he views such issues as holy grails that Democrats will just have to live with and never affirmatively fix.

It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters. If Biden does help the Democrats regain the Senate, great!

But even if he does, I do not believe a newfound Democratic Senate will matter because Biden will be unwilling to prioritize *doing* anything with Senate majority power.
I don't know how you can be so sure about what Biden will fail to do, but I'm willing to grant it, for the sake of argument.

Is it your position then, that Sanders will have more success in down ballot elections? Based on what evidence? What is Sanders' record in helping down ballot Democratic candidates? Compare and contrast it to that of Biden.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 03-09-2020 at 12:43 PM.
  #78  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:04 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters. If Biden does help the Democrats regain the Senate, great!
Oh yes, absolutely the thing we need is someone at the top of the ticket to inspire enthusiasm among the demographic that doesn't fucking vote.
  #79  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:13 PM
Knavette is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: St Louis Missouri
Posts: 18
We had a major setback in our country, with Trump in office. We need anyone but Trump as President to heal the wounds that have occurred. Anyone but Trump. Anyone. Sad to say, that is the reality, and maybe it will be OK with Biden. So much is yet unknown in this election, and so much could happen. If we end up with Trump and Ivanka and all of them for the next 10 years, nothing will matter. So Biden's ineffectiveness seems much more acceptable, knowing what might happen.
  #80  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:28 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters.
Given the results of primaries thus far, and the demographics of who’s voting in them, why do you call this out specifically as a big factor?
  #81  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:08 PM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The only president I can think of that Biden (or Sanders) needs to not follow is the one by Johnson when he pardoned Nixon. But I do not see anyone who isn't a Republican pardoning Trump.
president ≠ precedent

Lyndon Johnson ≠ Gerald Ford

HTH.
  #82  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:21 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I am dubious about that. The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat and were rewarded with total government control a year later. Similarly, they confirmed a credibly accused sexual assaulter to SCOTUS and were rewarded with an expanded Senate majority in the 2018 midterms.
No SCOTUS seats were stolen. Keeping beating that dead horse, that will certainly help.
  #83  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:29 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No SCOTUS seats were stolen. Keeping beating that dead horse, that will certainly help.
Mitch? Mitch, is that you, you old so-and-so...!!
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #84  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:38 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No SCOTUS seats were stolen. Keeping beating that dead horse, that will certainly help.
Technically correct.
  #85  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:48 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
The difference this time around is that we are running out of time to turn the climate change trend around and we're getting awfully close to passing the point of no return, which means many of us are dealing with the reality that our great grandkids are likely to die screaming on a burning planet and yeah, that does tend to reduce our civility just a tad.
The Firebug would be 93 when the 22nd century begins, so I'm not thinking about my great-grandkids (if any should come to pass); I'm thinking about my son.

Necessary conditions for the Dems to actually DO something about climate change:

1) Win the Presidency
2) Win the Senate
3) Kill the filibuster

Maryland doesn't have its primary until April 28. I will vote for whichever of these two bozos says something equivalent to, "As President, I will send Congress an aggressive plan to combat global warming. If the Democrats win the Senate this fall, and Mitch McConnell filibusters our climate legislation, I'll work with Sen. Schumer to convince his caucus that the filibuster must end - that we must not be prevented from saving the planet from global warming by an arcane Senate tradition."

As far as I can tell, NEITHER of these two bozos has said anything like that. If that remains the case, I'll be voting for Warren, and I don't care that she's dropped out, because it won't fucking matter which of these bozos wins the nomination, even if the winner is guaranteed to win the Presidency.

Excuse me, I've got to go work for another 45 minutes, then I can go get drunk.
  #86  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:13 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,115
It's vanishingly unlikely that Democrats will have 50 votes to abolish the filibuster regardless of the position of the President. The filibuster does need to be abolished but it will happen when Democrats have a substantial buffer of at least 5-6 seats and also a President who strongly opposes the filibuster and who has won by fairly large margin and is popular in purple states. At best Republican obstructionism will intensify Democratic opposition to the filibuster so that if/when they win like 2008 they will be in a position to do something.
  #87  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:27 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Necessary conditions for the Dems to actually DO something about climate change:

1) Win the Presidency
2) Win the Senate
3) Kill the filibuster
You forgot the least likely step of all -

4) Start building a lot of new nuclear energy plants. Elizabeth Warren isn't going to do that, Bernie Sanders isn't going to do that, and Joe Biden only mentions nuclear energy once in his plan - calling for "small modular nuclear reactors at half the construction cost of today’s reactors". There are none under construction in the US, none under planning, and
Quote:
A 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors & Fuel Cycle (INPRO) programme concluded that there could be 96 small modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030 in its 'high' case, and 43 units in the 'low' case, none of them in the USA.
Regards,
Shodan
  #88  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:41 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
It's vanishingly unlikely that Democrats will have 50 votes to abolish the filibuster regardless of the position of the President. The filibuster does need to be abolished but it will happen when Democrats have a substantial buffer of at least 5-6 seats and also a President who strongly opposes the filibuster and who has won by fairly large margin and is popular in purple states. At best Republican obstructionism will intensify Democratic opposition to the filibuster so that if/when they win like 2008 they will be in a position to do something.
I am going to hope this turns out to be false.

If not, we're screwed if the Dems win in 2020, end of story: they win in 2020, don't get anything done, 2022 is another 2010/1994-style wipeout, and there goes the decade.

One reason I'm strongly leaning towards Biden is that, IF he comes to his senses, he's more likely than Bernie to be able to persuade the 50th most liberal Senator to vote to kill the filibuster.
  #89  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:54 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
4) Start building a lot of new nuclear energy plants.
You're confusing "necessary condition for doing something about climate change" with "what to do about climate change once the necessary conditions are met."

Now that that's out of the way, I strongly agree with you that we ought to be doing exactly that, and it's really my only major objection to Warren's proposed policies. Every objection to nuclear power I've ever heard of pales before the threat of runaway global warming. And we can get to carbon-free electricity a lot faster with nuclear power than without it.
  #90  
Old 03-09-2020, 04:35 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 570

No country for old men?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
What an incredibly bad plan! We will elect President Placeholder until we can come up with a stronger future candidate and some kind of actual program plans.
...
Out of a large pool of Democratic candidates we now have the most senior, old white guy of the party, who doesn’t even seem to know why he is running.

That is just a great strategy.
"President Placeholder" is the only option if you elect somebody with no chance of a second term. That applies to Biden and Sanders, and Trump will only have one more term if he wins, unless he really flips out and declares himself El Presidente for life. I decline to speculate on that possibility.

But where is this "large pool of Democratic candidates?" Better yet, a pool of viable candidates who might get elected. Post-Obama, the Democrats have been unable to find anyone with experience, charisma and principles. Instead, in 2016 they put up Hillary, who is clearly not that popular with the electorate, and this time round it is pretty much down to the old folks home. So add to the wish list a candidate young enough to reliably last two terms. Or is is the preference for old men due to Chinese influence?

One possibility is that the USA is now in for two or even three one-term presidents. The scenario; the Democrats win, the geriatric POTUS staggers on the end of his term before nature takes his course, but after a lackluster term a Republican gets in for 2024. Rinse and repeat in 2028 when the Democrats somehow rustle up a passable candidate who gets the nod.
  #91  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:12 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters.
Biden voters are more dependable because they don't need to work up enthusiasm in order to vote. They just go out and vote on schedule. It's something you do like getting your oil changed.
  #92  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:29 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I don't know how you can be so sure about what Biden will fail to do, but I'm willing to grant it, for the sake of argument.

Is it your position then, that Sanders will have more success in down ballot elections? Based on what evidence? What is Sanders' record in helping down ballot Democratic candidates? Compare and contrast it to that of Biden.
I mean, the polls until Biden's recent surge were all in rough agreement that he and Bernie were both equally likely to beat Trump. Whether those likelihoods translate into a better chance for Biden to produce superior general election Democratic coattails is debatable. This thread isn't meant to handicap the 'electability' debate, but I just think that there are real vulnerabilities to candidate Biden (just look at his track record on supporting Social Security cuts!) that many Democrats are papering over right now.
  #93  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:33 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Technically correct.
Technically incorrect. No President (or political Party) is owed a seat on the SCOTUS.
  #94  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:45 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
So we will see:

His taxes, in full.
What makes you believe this? The only way this happens is if the new administration illegally leaks the information.
  #95  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Technically incorrect. No President (or political Party) is owed a seat on the SCOTUS.
The President gets mentioned in the constitution as the person who nominates supreme court justices. But you nailed it with the political parties bit.
  #96  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:57 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The President gets mentioned in the constitution as the person who nominates supreme court justices. But you nailed it with the political parties bit.
Nominates, yes. Garland wasn't confirmed. Nothing incorrect about that.
  #97  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:21 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No SCOTUS seats were stolen. Keeping beating that dead horse, that will certainly help.
True. Mitch did insult the Constitution and the Democratic party, for sure, but the GOP had enough votes anyway to kill the nomination. Mitch just wanted to show how powerful he was.

Payback is a bitch, Mitch. Just remember that.
  #98  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:26 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... If that remains the case, I'll be voting for Warren, and I don't care that she's dropped out, because it won't fucking matter which of these bozos wins the nomination, even if the winner is guaranteed to win the Presidency.

...
Yes it will matter, since at least the Dems agree that Global warming is a problem and we have to do something, whereas the GOP "doesnt believe in it"- like it's something that will go away if you close your eyes and wish hard.

Before we can do anything about global warming we must:

1. Win the Presidency
2. Win the Senate

There is no step 3 without steps 1&2. A dem candidate can promise anything, but job 1 is the first step. We can do NOTHING without a democrat in the White House. To some extent, with executive orders the president can at least do something.

So, if you care about Global warming, then Job 1. Nothing else matters.
  #99  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:32 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes it will matter, since at least the Dems agree that Global warming is a problem and we have to do something, whereas the GOP "doesnt believe in it"- like it's something that will go away if you close your eyes and wish hard.
I think he means between Biden and Sanders, not between either one of them and Trump.
  #100  
Old 03-09-2020, 06:39 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
...
But where is this "large pool of Democratic candidates?" Better yet, a pool of viable candidates who might get elected. Post-Obama, the Democrats have been unable to find anyone with experience, charisma and principles. Instead, in 2016 they put up Hillary, who is clearly not that popular with the electorate, and this time round it is pretty much down to the old folks home. ...
Beto: 48
Gabbard: 38
Buttigieg: 38
Gillibrand:53
Harris: 56
Stacey Abrams: 47 (very likely Bidens Veep)

And at the start of her run, Hillary was quite popular, it was only after ceaseless attacks by the GOP, Kremlin and Bernie Bros that she dropped so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Abrams

and it aint "the democrats' it's the voters. The voters seem to want age this time. Hell, remember trump is 73. We dont hear the GOP saying "old folks home", for some reason it's only people who allege to be liberal.
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 06:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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