Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2751  
Old 11-15-2019, 12:35 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is this your first Presidential election? Candidates always promise things that require legislation. And your inability to even give a realistic example on the how, shows why they don't explain it. Not a single one of your examples falls under the president's power.
So let's go back to pretending a President Biden or a President Warren or a President Whoever (D) won't be completely & immediately hamstrung by an irredeemable and archaic political system originally designed to solely benefit pre-Industrial age slave owners who shat in chamber pots, gotcha.

Someone needs to stop BSing and actually be realistic about the path this country is on, and why nothing can be changed until we drastically fix our electoral system and cleanse the rot in our government. Anything else is just fanfic for activists and political junkies.
  #2752  
Old 11-15-2019, 12:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
If the Democrats with the election, the first priority should be the statehood of PR and DC. If they have the Senate, they might be able to do this with a simple majority in both houses of Congress. If the process is challenged, then let the courts decide, but this should be the priority since so many other things will need a solid majority in the Senate.
  #2753  
Old 11-15-2019, 01:29 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Feel free to fuck whatever shit gives you consent. MfA has nothing to do with Medicare. It eliminates Medicare.
Cite, please?

You've already falsely claimed that M4A really means nationalized health care. Now just today, Warren said that the first step towards her M4A plan would be to lower the Medicare age to 50, and create a Medicare buy-in for everyone else.

That's a funny way to eliminate Medicare.

So yeah, I need a cite.
  #2754  
Old 11-15-2019, 01:53 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is this your first Presidential election? Candidates always promise things that require legislation. And your inability to even give a realistic example on the how, shows why they don't explain it. Not a single one of your examples falls under the president's power.
You're right - we shouldn't consider the possibility that a President might have the support of the vast majority of his or her party.

pjacks is absolutely correct that, even with the full cooperation of his/her own party, the President will be unable to bring back bipartisanship to DC, or crowd source a revolution, or use executive orders to being forth a new Utopia.

pjacks is also correct that, unless the Dems win the Senate, and a Democratic President can win the cooperation of the members of his own party to kill the filibuster, the President won't be able to accomplish much at all. I'd add that the result of that would be that 2022 would be another massacre of Congressional Democrats.

Nobody's saying the President can wave a magic wand and get rid of the filibuster by him/herself. But there is no route to meaningful change that doesn't pass through the removal of the filibuster.

That means "a realistic example on the how" involves how to bring about the end of the filibuster. There is no guaranteed way to do this; it's just a matter of which way you think has the best prospects.

I would claim that the plan with the best chance of success would be a combination of (a) the nomination of a Presidential candidate who will advocate for the removal of the filibuster, combined with (b) people with Democratic Senators calling and writing them to advocate the removal of the filibuster.

If you've got a more realistic alternative, feel free to share it with us.
  #2755  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
I think I've told you a billion times that I agree the filibuster might have to go for any progress and also that I don't think the President's endorsement of removing the filibuster means anything. How many times do we need this conversation?
  #2756  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:05 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I think I've told you a billion times that I agree the filibuster might have to go for any progress and also that I don't think the President's endorsement of removing the filibuster means anything. How many times do we need this conversation?
"If you've got a more realistic alternative, feel free to share it with us."

The floor is yours.
  #2757  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Who put you in charge of the floor?
  #2758  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
The thing is, your filibuster fixation is a magic wand. It's removal will only make things better during the brief periods you hold the Senate. It may solve some gridlock but I'm not seeing how even medium term it's a net positive for the Dems.

What am I exactly supposed to be finding a "realistic alternative " for?
  #2759  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
She's now just completely reversing course, or being completely incoherent ... not sure which.

Medicare right now has virtually no overlap with what is proposed as MfA. Medicare is not a Canadian-style system and the huge improvements in quality outcomes and cost that have occurred in Medicare have mostly occurred in the rapidly growing Medicare Advantage slice, subbed out to private insurance companies.

Pretty much every analysis, including the most favorable, of MfA recognizes that it "would largely sunset Medicare and Medicaid" - it's not something that is really in dispute.

What she is saying TODAY is that what she will actually DO is support the ACA and begin an expansion of actual Medicare as an option to those over 50, and work for the new single payer as an option for those under 50. (Free for those under 18 and those at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.) THEN in year three she says she'll fight for getting through the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid and replacing everything with the new plan, on the presumption that in that short time "the American people will have experienced the full benefits of a true Medicare for All option, and they can see for themselves how that experience stacks up"

While unrealistic in the timeline and some other details this is a much better approach, and is where I had hoped she would go in the first place - endorsing the longer vision of a single payer system but recognizing that the best way to get there is not elimination of all that the ACA has accomplished overnight and all that works to many people's great satisfaction in Medicare and even private plans overnight, but expanding Medicare, offering a buy-in to a public option, and outcompeting the privates in the marketplace. She is at least now pulling back towards that direction.

That current improved course correction does not however reverse the poor judgement she showed by her full all in embrace of the more revolutionary approach that was predicated on a false painting the ACA as a failure, and does not change the fact that if at some point the new plan became the plan for all without any option it would do so by eliminating actual Medicare and replacing it.

It is I think more of a reaction to Buttigieg's more moderate positions having him doing so well in Iowa. What she proposes now is more on Biden's and Buttigieg's page than on Sanders', even as she promises that she will go there as the plan proves itself to the public within the term. She thought she needed to firm up her progressive cred and she is now seeing that she may have tacked too hard. I think she's reacting to Patrick's entry as well.
  #2760  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:58 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
IOW, Warren slipped on a puddle of Billionaire tears.
  #2761  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The thing is, your filibuster fixation is a magic wand. It's removal will only make things better during the brief periods you hold the Senate. It may solve some gridlock but I'm not seeing how even medium term it's a net positive for the Dems.
Oh, so you've told me a billion times you agree with me that the filibuster needs to go, only you don't agree.

Anyway, I'll answer this one, before I disappear you from my sight:

Short version: with the filibuster, we've got no chance to make any of the positive changes this country needs. If we get rid of it, we've got a chance. I'd rather have a chance than no chance.

Long version:

Assuming the Dems win the White House and the Senate, what happens if the Dems keep the filibuster? They accomplish nothing in 2021-22, then get demolished at the polls in November 2022 because things still suck and they haven't done anything to change that. They also haven't done anything about climate change, so we're screwed in the long run too.

Eventually the GOP wins back the White House, either in 2024 or 2028. They have been willing to demolish any norm that's in their way, so if they need to kill the filibuster, they will. More likely, they'll just use reconciliation to pass more tax cuts, continue confirming GOP judges, etc., and keep the filibuster in place in order to keep the Dems from being able to pass stuff with a simple majority when they're next in supposed control.

And if they get rid of it? Then at least they've got a chance to accomplish good stuff: to pass laws ensuring that everyone can vote in Congressional elections, and that House districts aren't gerrymandered. To address climate change. To increase the minimum wage and empower unions. To make college affordable, and make getting health care more affordable and less complicated.

Sure, the GOP might repeal that stuff someday, if and when they get control of both houses of Congress and the White House. But the Dems' best bet is to pass laws that really help people in their daily lives - both to minimize the inevitable midterm losses, and to give people a reason to lean on their Congresspersons and Senators when the GOP has full control and tries to repeal all the good things the Dems passed, just the way it happened with the ACA in 2017.


If the Dems continue to play defense even when they have the ball - which is the only play they leave themselves if the filibuster is in place - then they never get anywhere, never accomplish anything for anybody, and never constitute more than a brake on the organized evil that is the GOP.

At some point, they've got to go on offense - kill the filibuster and try to actually accomplish something positive - or they, and the country, are screwed. Yeah, there are risks. But that beats hell out of the certain slow self-defeat of the other approach.

A chance, versus no chance. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 11-15-2019 at 03:03 PM.
  #2762  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
You need to chill. I agreed that the filibuster may need to be removed for progress on certain issues, I never said it would solve everything forever.

For some things, like entitlements, a short term advantage can almost be permanent as they are much harder to roll back, politically. So removing the filibuster to get a good healthcare plan through would certainly be worth it. However, other things can be rolled back much easier once the filibuster is gone and the Dems are out of power.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-15-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #2763  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Well we agree here that the idea is one with no brain ...
  #2764  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
And I should point out, once again you are triggered by a pet topic being mentioned and ignored the context of the conversation you jumped into. pjacks complained about nominees talking about legislation with no plan for how they are getting passed. All his proposals were also things that couldn't be directly accomplished by the President, which is what I pointed out. Then you barge in to tell me "argo blargo, filibuster bad. Wut your plan?!?".
  #2765  
Old 11-15-2019, 03:45 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,765
So, pjacks, you think it's unrealistic for the President to promise anything that needs to get through the senators of 25 states, and your proposed solution is something that, in order to pass, would need to get through the senators of all 50 states? Because that is literally what you'd need to tie Senate representation to state population: Unanimous agreement of all 50 states.
  #2766  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
New Selzer poll of Iowa. Buttigieg now leads. By a wide margin.
Quote:
Since September, Buttigieg has risen 16 percentage points among Iowa’s likely Democratic caucusgoers, with 25% now saying he is their first choice for president. For the first time in the Register’s Iowa Poll, he bests rivals Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are now clustered in competition for second place and about 10 percentage points behind the South Bend, Indiana, mayor.
Buttigieg 25
Warren 16
Biden 15
Sanders 15

If this is how Iowa shakes out, are fears of Buttigieg's poor electability (and what that sort of performance would say about Biden) groundless or not?
  #2767  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Klobuchar next btw with 6.

As to my question, Iowa caucus goers seem to care most about that, even as they choose him.
Quote:
A majority — 63% — say it’s more important to nominate a candidate with a strong chance to beat the president than to nominate a Democrat who shares their positions on major issues. Thirty-two percent say the opposite. ...

... Of the four candidates tested, Sanders shows the most weakness, with 31% saying they are "almost certain" he will lose. It's 24% for Warren, 21% for Biden and 19% for Buttigieg.

Biden fares best, with 25% saying he they are "almost certain he will beat" Trump. It is 17% for Sanders, 16% for Buttigieg and 15% for Warren. Among all poll respondents, 52% say they are fairly confident or almost certain Biden will beat Trump. Biden is the only one of the four top candidates to reach a majority.

“Here is why Biden is still alive,” Selzer said, noting that 57% of Biden’s supporters say they are certain he will beat Trump.

For Buttigieg, the poll’s front-runner, just 27% of his own supporters say they are “almost certain” he will beat Trump. Selzer said that may be the worst number for Buttigieg in this poll.

"That's 30 points behind Biden, yet Buttigieg leads in this poll," Selzer said.

“If the most important thing is to win, his supporters don’t have that confidence that he’s the one to do it,” she said. “So as this goes forward, he has more convincing to do or someone else will rise up.”
And Warren likely course corrected because her own polling told her this:
Quote:
Biden and Buttigieg may also be benefiting from the 52% of likely Democratic caucusgoers who say they would rather see their nominee advocate for proposals that have a good chance of becoming law even if they do not represent big change. That’s more than the 36% who prefer a candidate who backs big ideas, even if there is a lower chance they would become law.
This is going to get even more interesting. Patrick may have a chance to jump up as the less risky (from the electability POV) option.
  #2768  
Old 11-16-2019, 10:39 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, pjacks, you think it's unrealistic for the President to promise anything that needs to get through the senators of 25 states, and your proposed solution is something that, in order to pass, would need to get through the senators of all 50 states? Because that is literally what you'd need to tie Senate representation to state population: Unanimous agreement of all 50 states.
Sorry, as long as the candidates are discussing fantasy healthcare plans that will never exist, I thought I'd try my own hand at fiction writing.
  #2769  
Old 11-16-2019, 10:49 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
New Selzer poll of Iowa. Buttigieg now leads. By a wide margin.

Buttigieg 25
Warren 16
Biden 15
Sanders 15

If this is how Iowa shakes out, are fears of Buttigieg's poor electability (and what that sort of performance would say about Biden) groundless or not?
This certainly would be great for him if the Iowa caucus was next week. The problem is now he has the bullseye on him, and during the next debate he will be relentlessly attacked by everyone else, as is tradition in these endless dozen-person "debates" that we all are doomed to watch for what feels like eternity. So get ready for the attacks and the plummeting polls after all his warts are exposed, as we've already seen happen with Harris & Warren.
  #2770  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:20 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
His weaknesses, and they most definitely exist, are not debate attackable ones. He will do better with the debate target on his back than others have I think.
  #2771  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,244
Winning Iowa ain't shit; the Iowa democrats tend to be left of left.

Let's see if Buttigieg can win Iowa and NH.
  #2772  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:47 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
His weaknesses, and they most definitely exist, are not debate attackable ones. He will do better with the debate target on his back than others have I think.
I remember when that twerp Swallwell went after him during one of the 1st debates, and he seemed to wilt under pressure and then faded away for the rest of the debate.

I will predict that Castro has his guns ready to point at Pete, as he did against Beto. He seems to be angling to be Biden's or Warren's VP lately. Gabbard will probably say some bizarre things about Pete supporting colonizing the Middle East or some shit, and a certain segment of voters will eat it up. Klobachur will go after him hard, as she knows she could steal some of his voters and then suddenly find herself in the Iowa top 3.

It won't be pretty. If he can weather the attacks (and to be fair, Mean Pete in the last debate was a winner for sure), then that will prove he is electable more than anything else possibly could.

Last edited by pjacks; 11-16-2019 at 11:48 PM.
  #2773  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,163
Has there been an analysis of recent Facebook propaganda? We already know that lies on social media are likely to decide the election, and that Kremlin and GOP operatives are smart enough to promote the candidates they fear the least. If Buttigieg is doing well in polls it may be, in part, because the Kremlin and the GOP want him to do well.

Pollsters sometimes ask "If the election were held today, for whom would you vote between Trump and Buttigieg?" Many voters in the "Middle" probably know little about Buttigieg. How much would the poll results change, if pollster appended "Before you answer, note that Buttigieg is a homosexual who wants schools to teach your children to be homosexual."

(Never mind whether that last clause is a true fact. Just like 'literally', the phrase 'true fact' literally no longer has its traditional meaning.)
  #2774  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:10 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,295
Some fun reading. Medicare for all act of 2006 bill by then Senator Ted Kennedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
I will predict that Castro has his guns ready to point at Pete, as he did against Beto. He seems to be angling to be Biden's or Warren's VP lately.
Castro didn't qualify for the 5th debate to be held on Nov. 20, 2019. His qualifying for the 6th debate looks unlikely since he didn't make the donor threshold or any of the poll qualifiers yet.
  #2775  
Old 11-17-2019, 12:39 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... If Buttigieg is doing well in polls it may be, in part, because the Kremlin and the GOP want him to do well. ...
This sort of absurd statement is Putin achieving his goal, to create a distrust of the democratic process as a whole.

There is no question that the Russian interference machine is operational, and its actual ability to significantly move polls is small. Non-zero but small. In an national election that is decided by a few tens of thousand votes in a few states that tiny ability can be of import. In a primary in which making the stage depends on hitting or not hitting 3% in a few polls, it may be enough to get someone you consider an asset to getting your preferred views out over the threshold.

But it is not what moves polls this degree, as much as Putin LOVES that you'd think it could and question that voters are so easily swayed in big numbers by misinformation manipulations.


In case I have not been clear - I share the fear that Buttigieg is a huge electability risk, and for good reasons. He has no proven executive experience (his mayoral track record fails in that regard), no other national level experience, and no demonstrated ability to win significant support outside of the college educated white demographic. The easily anticipated attacks based on homophobia are possibly the least of it.

But Sanders is, I think, even less electable, and while I had managed to convince myself that Warren was electable I am now convinced otherwise. Biden has been meh. Still the placeholder but meh. Klobuchar has rarely shown anything that could be called charismatic or inspiring. Harris was a surprisingly awful candidate.

I'm again seeing Patrick's path as a realistic, or at least not completely unrealistic, one. If Biden does not place within the top three in Iowa while Buttigieg wins then less revolutionary progressive and center Left voters who care most about electability may be spooked about nominating someone who they think of as having such general election vulnerabilities, and a Patrick win in N.H. would set him up to do well on Super Tuesday.

I think we've seen peak Warren.
  #2776  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:12 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Sorry to doublepost but researching out on Black voters' takes on Buttigieg by way of a recent YouGov national poll. Clearly he is not the group's current number one choice but, it seems, he is not actively disliked either.

He is viewed unfavorably by 22% of Black voters in that poll. Not much differently than the 19% for Biden, the 19% for Sanders, or the 17% for Warren. The biggest group just doesn't have ANY opinion about him favorable or un: 44% say "don't know." The others have lots more decided they like them than he does, but he has opportunity yet to connect.
  #2777  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:02 PM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 41,164
My liken Buttigieg's sudden burst in the polls to the striking of a match: A big flare-up followed by a quick burning out. My prediction remains a Biden/Warren ticket next November.
__________________
The two most interesting things in the world: Other people's sex lives and your own money.
  #2778  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:33 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siam Sam View Post
My liken Buttigieg's sudden burst in the polls to the striking of a match: A big flare-up followed by a quick burning out. My prediction remains a Biden/Warren ticket next November.
Sounds great. Grandpa/Grandma 2020: "Don't worry, she's still sharp as a tack!"

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-17-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #2779  
Old 11-17-2019, 06:00 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,765
I won't say that the age of any of the candidates is disqualifying, but I will say that if any of the oldsters is the nominee, they absolutely need a young VP. Biden/Warren would be a terrible idea.
  #2780  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siam Sam View Post
My liken Buttigieg's sudden burst in the polls to the striking of a match: A big flare-up followed by a quick burning out. ...
Could be, I wouldn't bet against it, but do you have any particular reason you believe so? Is it your gut, or the tea leaves, or what?

And what specifically do you think struck the match?

This is not a response to a good zinger in a debate, like Harris's flare was. This is voters in Iowa (and to some degree New Hampshire, where he is not leading but in the most recent poll was in the pretty much tied for second behind Biden with Warren and Sanders ... and they are each playing in their backyards there) just now deciding that he and his approach are more what they are looking for.
  #2781  
Old 11-17-2019, 10:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I won't say that the age of any of the candidates is disqualifying, but I will say that if any of the oldsters is the nominee, they absolutely need a young VP. Biden/Warren would be a terrible idea.
I concur. I am sorta a Biden fan, but I am absolutely in the camp he needs a young Veep. And perhaps a woman or a minority, too.
  #2782  
Old 11-17-2019, 10:37 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,163
If the two septuagenarians Biden and Warren are both elected, and both shuffle off this mortal coil, next in the line of succession, in the default case, would be Nancy Pelosi and (if control of the Senate is wrested from the evil-doers) Patrick Leahy. Pelosi and Leahy will each be celebrating their 80th birthday this March. Perhaps the priority should be a young Secretary of State.

All kidding aside and while admitting that Warren may not be the strategic choice for Biden's Veep, it is sad to disqualify her for her age. Warren has barely turned 70, is still showing huge spirit and stamina, and is one of the smartest candidates on the stage. And by actuarial tables she is, in effect, more than a decade younger than either Sanders or Biden.
  #2783  
Old 11-18-2019, 11:39 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 288
Joe Biden announced his campaign by using a very poignant phrase..."battle for the soul of the nation".

He was leading in the polls months before he announced his candidacy. The earliest poll I have found was in October 2018.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-donald-trump

Biden 33%
Sanders 13%
Harris 9%
Warren 8%
Booker 5%

He did not join the race until six months later in the last week of April. Since then he continues to be ahead of the pack as far as the poll trackers are concerned.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html

Elizabeth Warren had a very brief period last month taking the lead in the RCP tracker prompting talk about the fall of Biden but that didn't hold.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/209052...omination-2020

I find this all rather fascinating from a party political view. Even more now that Pete Buttigieg is leading in Iowa. Because Buttigieg started off being all for Medicare For All and speaking of how Democrats should not be afraid of being attacked as socialists for following progressive ideas because whatever they say will be attacked as socialism. But as the race has developed he has quietly shifted closer to the Biden-wing than the Bernie Sanders-wing. I believe this is demonstrated in Iowa.

Quote:
Biden leads the field on the question of whether poll respondents believe a candidate will beat Trump. Fifty-two percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers say they are almost certain or fairly confident that Biden will beat Trump, compared to 43% who say they are not very confident he can win or are almost certain that he will lose. He’s the only candidate for whom a majority of respondents are confident he’ll beat Trump.
https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/sto...mp/4197394002/

So one hand Biden is the only candidate with a positive net return vs Trump. But on the other hand he does not lead the field overall in Iowa.

Buttigieg saw a vacancy as the alternative to Biden and seized it. Similar political platform but he offers a new face. One that is new. That is forty years younger. Doesn't carry the baggage of years in Washington. Openly gay which is a symbolic of the progress in LGBT activism. But it's one state and he needs to broaden out to a broader more diverse coalition.

I believe there are candidates who could and should have filled that void of the Biden alternative much easier. Getting the high turnout across the demographics. Biden's support may be an inch deep and a mile wide. The numbers shows he leads in most demographics besides young voters. I believe someone like Kamala Harris would be so much stronger if she didn't chase Sanders on the Left because she ended up getting burned. The "Kamala is a cop" meme was perpetuated by the Left and weaponised by Tulsi Gabbard in the second debate in which Harris has never recovered. I think if she embraced that she was a prosecutor but advocated trying to reform the system from the inside she could have handled it. Instead she waited too long succumbing to the Sanders wing who believe the system must be dismantled, period, and that her being a prosecutor must mean she's complicit.

I believe Beto could have offered the Biden alternative his candidacy lacked clarity until he started swinging from the hips after the El Paso shootings personally struck a chord.

The reason why I think the Biden alternative is so important is his candidacy goes against the popular narrative that the Democratic Party has reered to the Left. He has received the most coverage unsurprisingly but much of it negative. Before the Ukraine topic came up here is an example:

Of the 100 stories about Joe Biden that have received the most social media attention over the last three weeks, 77 were negative.

https://www.axios.com/2020-election-...bc7aca51f.html

Admittingly Twitter is a bubble. A bubble that tends to tilt very left or very right. But the journalists who cover the campaigns are on there posting there all day. Stories break on Twitter through 280 characters and go viral. Viral stories fill the 24 hour TV news spectrum. The whole thing six months ago about the fundraiser comments about segragationists started from a reporter at the event tweeting out a soundbite that exploded. The actual transcript later posted showed a different side to the story but the damage was done.

Joe Biden's candidacy feels like teflon. He keeps getting peltered but nothing sticks. His numbers are steady and certainly in the South no one is really getting close. Yet if he goes all the way to the nomination getting battered and bruised by fellow Democrats I think there's a real problem. Like in 2016 people, especially young people, might not turn out. The Sanders wing featuring the likes of AOC openly call out members of the party too "centrist" and are running primaries against them. I am pretty sure a Biden nomination will be revolted by them. And if Biden is elected the odds on him being primaried in 2024 will be high.
  #2784  
Old 11-18-2019, 12:17 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,861
In another thread, in response to this:
“I think it's going to be Biden with Warren as VP ....”

I wrote this:
Too old*, too white, too Northeastern. Good ideological balance, though, but that’s about it. (And, lots of relevant experience).

But if it polls best vs. Trump in Great Lakes states, go for it. That’s the ONLY thing that matters, this time around. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry during these Dem debates? “Medicare for some” vs. “public option for dogs” vs. whatever...FORGET IT! The next president will spend the entire 4 years partially repairing the damage Trump has caused, and that’s IT. We’ll be back to the 2016 baseline, from which to move forward, by 2025 IF WE’RE LUCKY).

*i know, Warren is actuarially young, and full of vigah. True.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 11-18-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #2785  
Old 11-18-2019, 09:09 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 288
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...50535791972352

There is quite an irony in AOC ripping Trump for using "concentration camps" at the border but at the same time lionize a man who put over 100,000 Japanese Americans into what he himself called "concentration camps".

Quote:
Franklin D. Roosevelt in a note to the military Joint Board on August 10, 1936: (emphasis is mine)

What arrangements and plans have been made relative to concentration camps in the Hawaiian Islands for dangerous or undesirable aliens or citizens in the event of national emergency?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fdr-c...b026a89a7a2b73
  #2786  
Old 11-18-2019, 09:44 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,861
I know, right? And quoting Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, when the man owned human beings. Amazing stuff.
  #2787  
Old 11-19-2019, 09:59 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,308
So here's my opinion of Biden: I fear he has the biggest chance of duplicating HRC's crash-and-burn presidential run. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I fear he is running on a similar platform of entitlement/Obama's third term without a whole lot of substance otherwise (except for a completely right-wind stance on pot). He invokes the name of Obama every chance he gets.

In debates, he's easily rattled by attacks, which makes me think he wouldn't fare well against the garbage-mouthed incumbent. He also seems to struggle to stay on topic or fully make his points known.

I also fear that the specter of scandal--however untrue and conspiratorial--would mirror "but her emails!" and present an all-too easy base-rallying chant in the stadiums.

I'm currently having a debate with a friend about holding our nose and supporting Biden as the middle-of-the-roader most likely to win vs backing someone we actually like and think would be a better president because they "are too far left" to win.

I personally believe there's a bit of a myth to just how far left "too far left" really is--I think progressivism is the wave of progress in general other than hold-out dinosaurs like Biden (who in turn support Biden).

Maybe I'm way off...but I can easily see Biden's path mirroring HRC's. I don't see him as having much more likability or charisma than her.
  #2788  
Old 11-19-2019, 10:48 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
So here's my opinion of Biden: I fear he has the biggest chance of duplicating HRC's crash-and-burn presidential run. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I fear he is running on a similar platform of entitlement/Obama's third term without a whole lot of substance otherwise (except for a completely right-wind stance on pot). He invokes the name of Obama every chance he gets.

In debates, he's easily rattled by attacks, which makes me think he wouldn't fare well against the garbage-mouthed incumbent. He also seems to struggle to stay on topic or fully make his points known.

I also fear that the specter of scandal--however untrue and conspiratorial--would mirror "but her emails!" and present an all-too easy base-rallying chant in the stadiums.

I'm currently having a debate with a friend about holding our nose and supporting Biden as the middle-of-the-roader most likely to win vs backing someone we actually like and think would be a better president because they "are too far left" to win.

I personally believe there's a bit of a myth to just how far left "too far left" really is--I think progressivism is the wave of progress in general other than hold-out dinosaurs like Biden (who in turn support Biden).

Maybe I'm way off...but I can easily see Biden's path mirroring HRC's. I don't see him as having much more likability or charisma than her.
I think Joe's much more likable than Hillary. Also, I suspect people sat out in 2016 because they didn't really like her, but they also thought Trump could never win, so what's the difference if they actually got out to vote. The midterms and the special elections and the 2019 elections have been indicating that people aren't going to make that same mistake again. They're showing up to vote, and overall, it hasn't been good for the GOP or Trump.

That being said, I don't know if Joe's the right guy, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I do suspect there are a lot of more moderate Republicans who would vote for Joe in a heartbeat over Trump (here in West Michigan, a lot of socially conservative Christians are also very pro-immigrant/refugee and are appalled by Trump's callousness and would have no problem voting for a moderate Dem to get DJT the fuck out of the WH. At the very least I think they would feel comfortable sitting it out next November and "letting" the sane Democrat win.).

But I agree with you that Biden isn't as sharp on the debate stage as I'd like him to be. Strong debate performances didn't win it for Hillary however. For many people it's about who the trust more. Oddly, many chose Trump over Hillary on that count (or chose not voting over voting for Hillary), but I don't see that happening as much in swingy states next time around. Just mho.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-19-2019 at 10:48 PM.
  #2789  
Old 11-20-2019, 08:41 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 622
PJ O’Rourke on television this morning:
“The Democrats are convinced that nobody can lose to Trump and they are actively looking for that nobody.”
  #2790  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:15 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
PJ O’Rourke on television this morning:
“The Democrats are convinced that nobody can lose to Trump and they are actively looking for that nobody.”
++
  #2791  
Old 11-21-2019, 05:51 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Buttigieg saw a vacancy as the alternative to Biden and seized it. Similar political platform but he offers a new face. One that is new. That is forty years younger. Doesn't carry the baggage of years in Washington. Openly gay which is a symbolic of the progress in LGBT activism. But it's one state and he needs to broaden out to a broader more diverse coalition.
My oft-repeated theory remains: Buttigieg is playing a long game. His run this time is about building a brand; he never expected to be a frontrunner but wanted to get himself known on the national stage (and give the Overton window on a "gay president" a nudge in the right direction) and then do a serious run in four or eight years. In between, he could do a keynote DNC speech, maybe do a stint in the House if another Democrat wins in 2020, and keep building momentum until he's ready. Or he might snag a VP slot, depending on who the top spot goes to.

Ironically, the one thing that could ruin his plan is winning the nomination. He's not ready now, he knows he's not ready now, and I think if he does become the nominee he will have a serious "oh shit" moment. I mean, I like him a lot and I do think he could be an excellent president. But I'm not sure this is his hour.
  #2792  
Old 11-21-2019, 07:09 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,765
Quote:
Quoth dontbesojumpy:

I personally believe there's a bit of a myth to just how far left "too far left" really is--I think progressivism is the wave of progress in general other than hold-out dinosaurs like Biden (who in turn support Biden).
I think there are actually a lot of Trump supporters who like him, not because he's an extreme Republican, but simply because he's extreme, and they don't care in what direction. Those people would be more easily won over by an extreme Democrat than by a moderate.
  #2793  
Old 11-21-2019, 01:44 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,982
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...alk-about-joe/
Interesting analysis of Biden by Drum:

Quote:
But something that struck me a little harder than usual was that Biden was almost the only one on the stage who talked like a normal person. There was a point near the end of the debate when he was talking about getting men involved in stopping domestic violence and he said that we need to keep “punching” at it. My heart sank immediately. I knew that everyone would smirk at that. I knew that the twitterati and the analysts would tut tut. Ol’ Joe is just out of touch! He doesn’t know you can’t use words like that.

Meanwhile, every non-political junkie watching the debate thought there was nothing wrong with this. Biden was just using ordinary language, not worrying too much if it was fully approved by the woke brigade.

It was the same when Biden said he “came out of the black community.” Smirks and Twitter ridicule. But it was pretty obvious what he meant, and I imagine most people, both black and otherwise, understood it perfectly well.

And the closing statements! Nine of the candidates gave scripted, bog ordinary statements. Biden’s was scripted too, but it was completely different. The United States is great! We can do anything if we put our minds to it! Stop being so downcast!

We sophisticates might roll our eyes at that, but I’ll bet most people don’t. That’s exactly what they want to hear, and Biden is the only one giving it to them. His final minute was basically a bid to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan, and I suspect it worked.
  #2794  
Old 11-21-2019, 01:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...alk-about-joe/
Interesting analysis of Biden by Drum:
Yep. I know, I know, the pundits dont care for Joe. But he acts like a regular guy (and so does Mayor Pete to some extent, which is why I am hoping for Pete in 2028). And it's why people like him. They like his little gaffes, they make him seem human.
  #2795  
Old 11-21-2019, 05:58 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
Michael Bloomberg officially filed FEC paperwork today.
  #2796  
Old 11-22-2019, 05:08 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
And now he's spending a record-shattering amount of money on a single week's worth of TV commercials.
  #2797  
Old 11-22-2019, 06:01 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...alk-about-joe/
Interesting analysis of Biden by Drum:
Quote:
Meanwhile, every non-political junkie watching the debate thought there was nothing wrong with this. Biden was just using ordinary language, not worrying too much if it was fully approved by the woke brigade.
On what basis can this author possibly know what "every non-political junkie watching the debate" thinks or feels? They're literally just extrapolating their own opinion out to the general public, based on absolutely nothing.

...unless there was some kind of accompanying poll or some other provided data.
  #2798  
Old 11-22-2019, 08:26 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 288
The viewing numbers for these debates are pretty bad. The second night of the first round of debates in June peaked at 18 million. Ever since, and not surprisingly, with so many candidates all on one stage the numbers have fallen. The last one registered 7 million.

Then factor in how long the debates go on + the number of people, then it's a debate in name only. There is no real discussion. It's about getting your canned lines in, your prepared gotcha and then we move on. I kind of laughed when on two occasions the camera zoomed in on Biden and Buttigieg with their hand in the air after someone brought up their names for a right to reply only for the moderators to completely change the subject. I was as pissed as those two!

And for the record Warren made a gaffe which didn't pick up. She said her 2% wealth tax applies on wealth of 50 billion dollars rather than 50 million dollars. And she said it twice. Imagine if Biden made such an error about his own plan.
  #2799  
Old 11-23-2019, 09:04 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,765
It takes a "political junkie" to know that punching isn't the right word to use when talking about domestic violence? That's just the way that everyone talks?
  #2800  
Old 11-23-2019, 12:26 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 288
I was expecting "no pun intended". Didn't arrive!

Have to say I just find the parsing over everything Biden says in the hope he slips up or stutters boring now. I saw people on the activist left say "well ackshually 40% of abusive partners in a relationship are women" when he said men needing to use self defence rarely happens. I mean come on, if he made an equivocacy between men and women they would have derided him as being out of touch with women's rights.

Bernie shouts every debate he has been in going back to 2016 he wrote the damn bill but if I were as pedantic I'd point out John Conyers wrote the damn bill. Bernie named a few post offices.
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 06:57 AM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017