Yeah that definitely sounds like an extremely stable coalition that will certainly hold steady in the over a year left before Election day. Racists & blacks! Just holding hands together at Biden rallies as we all giddily anticipate our national return to normalcy and decency.
These are people who aren’t paying any attention at all to the primary race. They don’t even know what state Biden is from. I guess it’s nice that uninformed boomers who read local paper newspapers (if at all), spend all day staring at Facebook and have landlines have chosen their candidate this early.
This is so tired. Do you know what a do-nothing corporatist democrat nominee or president gets us in 5 or 9 years? A president that’s worse than Trump. I am tired of these seat warmers occuping the white house in between progressively more horrible Republican presidents. We need someone to drastically change the way this country is governed. Abolish the EC, expand the House, give DC & Pierto Rican statehood, pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, make mail-in voting the norm, the works. Biden will not do this- he can barely handle a campaign event without muttering incoherently or bleeding from random orifices. The democratic party under his leadership will not do this- it will collapse shortly after Biden is sworn in as white suburbanites slowly return to the GOP and GenXers and millennials become completely disillusioned with yet another incompetent, ineffective Democratic administration.
So get ready for a President Joe Arpaio, Steve King, or Martin Shkreli in 2024 or 2028. I assume those are the heir apparents, just judging by the awful trajectory of the GOP pver the past 50 years. Anyone else in the running? Maybe a couple of the Duck Dynasty guys I guess.
If every white racist votes for Trump, then Trump will win easily.
If every gun owner annoyed by talk of gun control votes for Trump, then Trump will win easily.
If all Americans happy with their private health insurance vote for Trump, then Trump will win easily.
Trump will be defeated easily if Generation Z turns out to vote in the same proportion as Baby Boomers … but they won’t.
Trump will be defeated easily if the Kremlin-Facebook Lie Machines turn against Trump … but they won’t.
See following the link to its source we see that “racial resentment” is defined based on
The actual result?
Not sure that relatively low scores vs relatively high scores (for a Democratic voter) on those two questions capture being a racist, or even racially resentful, voter. Honestly lower scores on that scale seem most likely to correlate highest with being younger and progressive and higher with older and moderate to conservative more than how motivated a voter is by “racial resentment”. He does best with the latter, we know that.
But yes, Biden currently polls well with Black voters (more so older Black voters) and less progressive white voters.
Why should “Gen Z” turn out to vote for Biden, who is older than their grandparents, and who would do next to nothing about things that affect their lives, like climate change, the coming automation crisis, marijuana legalization and college debt? They are screwed either way. Boomers will continue to get massive wealth redistributed to them in the form of Medicare & Social Security, as well as reap the benefits that affordable housing/college & a better job market gave them years ago, while we are left with nothing. Medicare for All? Lol. With the ways things are going, basic Medicare and Social Security won’t even be around when we are your age.
Every 4 years you all tell us to shut up because you know better. Maybe for once ask your kids and grandkids who they are supporting, and then vote for their chosen candidate yourself.
I guess it depends on what you believe about global warming.
If you believe it’s a major threat to civilization as we know it (which I do) and believe we have maybe a decade to do enough so we don’t hit the positive feedback loop where the world keeps on getting warmer even after we stop putting carbon in the atmosphere, and you know you’re not going to get 60 Senate votes in 2021 for anything big enough to do the job - all of which I take pretty much for granted - then whatever slim chance that win the White House AND the Senate AND kill the filibuster is the slender route that gets us to where we can - not will, but can - save the world from that fate.
But if we fail to do all three, then we’re screwed.
I also take it for granted that the initiative, the pressure, to get rid of the filibuster won’t come from the Senate. Someone else will have to light a fire under them. Maybe the President can’t. Quite possibly. But who else can?
So there’s this thin path to saving the world. Defeating Trump is part of that path. But defeating Trump in a way that takes us off the path right after that is no good AFAIAC.
It’s such a terrible idea to present this Chicken Little narrative that will in 10 years lead to young progressives checking out of politics because we failed to “save the world”, and centrists feeling that warnings about environmental dangers are easily ignored because the world did not end.
I don’t agree with your politics but I have to give you credit for a nicely worded talking point.
However, voting by mail is a terrible idea. In addition to the fact that it gives domineering patriarchs too much power over their wives and adult children living at home, it can lead to straight up fraud as we saw in North Carolina last fall.
Climate change is not a simple Yes/No or Succeed/Fail matter. Yes, there are positive feedbacks threatening, but there are several of them, which will inflect at different points and nobody is sure where those points are. Anyway, when Global Warning is too obvious to deny, there will be a rush to inject coolants (e.g. sulfate aerosols) into the atmosphere; this won’t fix the problems but will dramatically affect the parameters.
Anyway, will it matter much which Dem is sitting in the Oval Office? IIRC only Inslee made climate change a top priority. Congress, industry, the media, etc. will all be key, not just the President.
Ridding the U.S.A. of the Orange Abomination is a huge priority. U.S. Government science is being decimated; this impacts climate research and much more. A Dem President in 2021 might invite back those scientists who quit or were fired, perhaps with a substantial pay raise. Wait until 2025 and the damage will be much more permanent. Similar arguments apply to the diplomatic corps, the opinion of our allies, etc.
Optimists expect the Dems to win easily in 2020, both Senate and White House, and to kill the filibuster. I sure hope you’re right. I tend to be a pessimist, but oddsmakers agree with me: Trump will probably be re-elected unless there’s a recession or other major mishap. The Dems need to nominate the candidate with best electoral chance. (Unfortunately I don’t know who that is. Biden, if the risk of age-related mishap weren’t so great.)
I believe the consensus of the scientific panels. The panel statements do not quite say the same things you do. septimus states it well.
The overall risk of greater catastrophic changes are MUCH higher with another term of Trump than with any Democrat in the White House.
The best outcome in my mind is a complete rejection Trumpism and the GOP as it currently brands. A very solid defeat of Trump, more gains in the House, and control of the Senate.
IF that rebuke occurs then GOP leadership and rank and file has a reasonable chance of listening to their messaging experts Frank Luntz and others who argue that Climate Change Denial is politically more costly than beneficial.
There is virtually no chance that the filibuster will be eliminated, with or without a President champion for its demise. There is some less small chance that in the face of a resounding loss the GOP listens to these messaging experts as to what is in their political best interests going forward.
I want the candidate who I believe can best facilitate that level of resounding GOP loss as the best path forward for our planet. Not yet sure who that is.
Tell me significant action on climate change is going to happen without the President making a big push for it.
Then pull the other one.
Sure, once the President makes a big push for it, then the others are important. But not until.
And if the filibuster remains in place, then even the President doesn’t matter. And the Senate won’t suddenly up and kill the filibuster of its own accord; it will need to be pushed. And again, the push has to come from the President; nobody else has enough push. And even she will need a lot of pressure from the rest of us. So a President that doesn’t push to kill the filibuster effectively ends the possibility of meaningful climate change legislation from the start.
If you’re talking to me, I’ve said that the path to accomplishing all three is a slender path. I’m not optimistic at all. I have concluded we need all three, so that’s what I’m fighting for.
Tru dat. The real question is, is the Presidency the whole ball of wax, or are there other things that override the difference of a few percentage points in ‘electability’ likelihood? I say the latter. The filibuster is clearly key, and two of the top four candidates want to keep it, and the other two want to get rid of it. AFAIAC, wanting to keep it is disqualifying, absent some enormously greater likelihood of being elected.
And we can argue until the cows come home about who’s most and least electable, but we really don’t know. Ditto for who’s the best to help us win the Senate, though with respect to that, I’d note that only one of the possible pickups (Iowa) is in the Midwest, so winning the Senate isn’t likely to be about the WWC. But we do know that Warren and Harris are not only for killing the filibuster, but consider it to be a priority, while Biden and Sanders are against killing it.
I so appreciate your positions, RTFirefly. But if the D’s do win the Senate it will only be 50-50 or 51-49. Will all D Senators (or all but one) vote to abolish the filibuster?
And must the rule change be made on opening day? If the R’s block an important bill in March, can a majority of the Senate stand up and demand a rule change then?
At a minimum, filibusters should be changed to require real filibustering, like in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Let the CNN cameras show R’s babbling while a panel chats about how the R’s are doing this to prevent poor people from having healthcare.
Tru dat. But what we do know is that global warming has been consistently outrunning the middle-of-the-road predictions. Do we have climate scientists that say we’ll be OK if we only do kinda middling stuff (e.g. carbon tax) for the next decade, before getting serious?
You mean, like last year? Or the year before last?
:rolleyes: on two counts: (1) Yeah, everyone knows about this, no citation needed, right? (2) Absent one, I’m going to just assume this is the flavor of the month of “we’re going to mitigate global warming after the fact,” along the lines of building big mirrors in space.
I’m all too aware of the degree of difficulty.
But if the only way from Point A to Point B is through some hideously difficult terrain, then that’s what you have to deal with.
We all have our magic pony plans to fix the filibuster. I certainly have mine.
But opening up that debate is just one more thing to suck up time and quite potentially just get people to throw up their hands and give up, and we get stuck where we are.
I agree that mitigating climate change is urgent. It is worth a X% risk of re-electing Trump if it means running a better candidate. We’re in agreement there. I just think X is rather small.
Recall that U.S. CO2 emissions are down 15% since 2000 while China’s have tripled over the same period. Taken together, India and Russia emit almost as much as U.S.A. Building amity and cooperation among the world’s countries — in contrast to Trump’s ‘America First’ outlook — may do more to reduce global CO2 emissions than unilateral U.S. actions.
Citation that sulfate injection might suspend global warming for only $5 to $10 billion per year. I am not suggesting that this is a good plan. I am suggesting that desperate governments will end up doing something like this, but projections do not take that into account.
I encourage those who want or expect Michelle Obama to run for POTUS, or to consent to be nominated as VPOTUS, to read her excellent memoir Becoming. You’ll see, I think, that there’s almost a zero-percent chance of her deciding to do either.
The utilitarian cost to America and the World of another 4 years of Trump, Pence or Moscow Mitch would be difficult to quantify, but is surely at least a trillion dollars and probably closer to $2 trillion. (Ballpark of $800 per person-year.)
If Michelle’s running would improve chances by 2%, then that action would have expected value of some $40 billion. Yes, we’d be asking Ms. Obama to make a huge sacrifice, but it’s her chance to make a colossal gift to the American people and humanity.
I do not expect this to happen, and do realize that ‘generic Democrat’ is favored over Trump. (Unfortunately we don’t have ‘generic Democrat’; we have front-runners all with potentially severe flaws. I think Michelle would indeed improve victory chance by at least 2%.)
I predict Trump will agree to do just one debate rather than the now customary three. He’ll be derided by everyone including right wing media if he pulls out completely. But one debate will be billed as a blockbuster and he’s all about ratings. And then there’s the self-guard because if his opponent has one flat night it’s a win for him and similarly if he is perceived to have lost the debate then it doesn’t matter because it was widely accepted Clinton performed better in 2016. All Trump needs is to throw in a few soundbites for the media to lap up like a dog with a bone.
1960: Vice President Richard Nixon vs Senator John Kennedy (x4) 1976: President Gerald Ford vs Former Governor Jimmy Carter (x3) 1980: President Jimmy Carter vs Former Governor Ronald Reagan (x1) 1984: President Ronald Reagan vs Former Vice President Walter Mondale (x2) 1988: Vice President George Bush vs Governor Michael Dukakis (x2) 1992: President George Bush vs Governor Bill Clinton vs Ross Perot (x3) 1996: President Bill Clinton vs Former Senator Bob Dole (x2) 2000: Vice President Al Gore vs Governor George W Bush (x3)
**2004: President George W Bush vs Senator John Kerry (x3) ** 2008: Senator Barack Obama vs Senator John McCain (x3) 2012: President Barack Obama vs Former Governor Mitt Romney (x3) 2016: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump (x3)
If you say Mitch McConnell is Donald Trump’s toady, either you are extremely confused, or you and I are quite simply not living in the same universe.
Laws aren’t something a President delivers either, but the President’s party in Congress usually tries to pass the President’s agenda. And the likelihood that that party will try to take on a difficult challenge without the President’s urging is pretty close to nil.
Consider this number: fourteen.
Assuming (as is nearly universally expected) that Doug Jones fails to win re-election in Alabama, that’s the sum of the number of Senate seats the Dems have to win in 2020, plus the number of Republican Senators not occupying any of those seats that the President has to persuade, to pass a bill as long as the filibuster remains in place.
I’d like to see someone come up with a credible combination of winnable GOP seats and persuadable GOP Senators that sums to 14.
Biden, if the risk of age-related mishap weren’t so great.)