president ≠ precedent
Lyndon Johnson ≠ Gerald Ford
HTH.
No SCOTUS seats were stolen. Keeping beating that dead horse, that will certainly help.
Mitch? Mitch, is that you, you old so-and-so…!!
Technically correct.
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:
- Win the Presidency
- Win the Senate
- 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.
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.
You forgot the least likely step of all -
- 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
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Technically incorrect. No President (or political Party) is owed a seat on the SCOTUS.
What makes you believe this? The only way this happens is if the new administration illegally leaks the information.
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.
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.
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:
- Win the Presidency
- 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.
I think he means between Biden and Sanders, not between either one of them and Trump.
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.
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.