Your Democratic Primary Candidate Power Rankings: Post 'em here.

[RTFirefly]

@SlackerInc

Interesting how Andy, in two consecutive posts before this one, castigated Democratic pragmatists for voicing the same types of concerns you will hear from David Axelrod, who as I have said should have more credibility than pretty much any human alive.

And I’ve had words to say about Axelrod’s world view in this thread. So my opinion of his cred is rather different from yours.

However, he does not apparently have any such qualms about a prediction (which sounds more like the confident expression of metaphysical certainty) that electing someone like Biden, Booker, or Klobuchar instead of Warren will lead straight to a “hellscape”. No sir, that’s just common sense! :rolleyes:

I’ve explained the connection. You can disagree with me, but it means nothing unless you point out which step in my thinking you disagree with, and why.

RTF, it’s amazing to me that you are the same person who calmly and coolly weights and aggregates poll numbers. I’ve never seen these two kinds of posting styles go together in one poster before.

I’m unique.

Look, about the only thing we can say for close to certain about what the future will be like if global warming goes unchecked is that humanity will manage to survive, because we can see the track record of prehistoric humans surviving in a wide range of extremely inhospitable environments.

But whether, and how much, of civilization will be able to sustain itself is very much an open question. And global warming keeps on exceeding the median predictions. And my son is 12 years old. The world that we will choose over the next decade is the world that he will spend his life in. Yes that fucking matters.

[you_with_the_face]

@iiandyiiii

I see no reason to believe that your feelings on this (or the feelings of any random internet person) are any more likely to be valid than a wild guess. Maybe you’re right, or maybe you’re wrong, but at this point you’re just guessing. The same arguments were made about Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump.

Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. Thank God the electorate back then didn’t let themselves be cowed into voting for the candidate favored most by big business, or my black ass would be in chains.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Interesting how Andy, in two consecutive posts before this one, castigated Democratic pragmatists for voicing the same types of concerns you will hear from David Axelrod, who as I have said should have more credibility than pretty much any human alive. For that matter, Barack Obama himself has expressed similar concerns. But Andy says we have no idea what will happen, so we should shut up. However, he does not apparently have any such qualms about a prediction (which sounds more like the confident expression of metaphysical certainty) that electing someone like Biden, Booker, or Klobuchar instead of Warren will lead straight to a “hellscape”. No sir, that’s just common sense! :rolleyes:

RTF, it’s amazing to me that you are the same person who calmly and coolly weights and aggregates poll numbers. I’ve never seen these two kinds of posting styles go together in one poster before.

I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If anyone is predicting “hellscape” silliness due to moderate Democrats, that’s very silly. That’s not a prediction about an election, though – it’s a prediction about policy (or something like that – it’s vague and silly enough to be generally meaningless and useless). My comment was about predictions about elections. Further, you haven’t cited anything from Axelrod that mirrors the posts I criticized. If Axelrod has said something as dumb as, or equivalent to, “Warren is certain to be defeated”, then that’s incredibly dumb and not worth anything, even from a smart guy like him… but I doubt he’s said anything that dumb.

[CarnalK]

@RTFirefly

I’m trying to come up with the circumstance that the Dems get climate change legislation through Congress and override Trump’s veto while Trump is putting more Justices on the Supreme Court.

I’ll help out your imagination: a court challenge may come after Trump’s presidency. Or Trump may not feel like vetoing it. If I spent more than 30 seconds, I could probably come up with more.

[CarnalK]

Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, “getting climate change legislation through Congress” that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

I’ll help out your imagination: a court challenge may come after Trump’s presidency. Or Trump may not feel like vetoing it. If I spent more than 30 seconds, I could probably come up with more.

The words are in English, but…

@CarnalK

Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, “getting climate change legislation through Congress” that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.

And the filibuster??

I mean, that’s my freakin’ point here: even if the Dems win everything next year, nothing gets through Congress as long as the filibuster is in place.

Exactly two current Democratic candidates - Warren and Harris - have said that there are circumstances where they would push to kill the filibuster. Biden and Sanders have said they wouldn’t. Everyone else either is in favor of keeping the filibuster, or has avoided the subject.

If the Dems want to do something about climate change, they need to kill the filibuster. The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won’t.

So if the Dem nominee is someone who wants to keep the filibuster, it doesn’t matter if they win, it doesn’t matter if the Dems win the Senate too. Nothing will be done about climate change.

Is there a hole in that logic, or not? If there is, what is it? Any criticism of my position that doesn’t address those questions is a waste of pixels.

[CarnalK]

Oh man, this climate change/Warren must win is all about which candidate supports removing the filibuster? Ok, forget I said anything.

[CarnalK]

Actually, here’s an honest question: did Obama or Trump publicly support the removals of the appointment filibusters?

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

Oh man, this climate change/Warren must win is all about which candidate supports removing the filibuster?

You’ve stated it backwards: the need to get rid of the filibuster is about climate change (and about pretty much every other Dem priority from a public option to a higher minimum wage). But yeah, that’s the idea.

[CarnalK]

With the way things are, removal of the filibuster is possibly going to be required. My objection to your position has always been that the President has got nothing to do with it. Senators will use their own calculus on it no matter what. I personally think that a Presidential candidate running on a promise to change the rules of procedure in another branch kind of bullshit too. Warren is a Senator. Howzabout she gets rid of Senate procedure she doesn’t like while she’s in there.

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

With the way things are, removal of the filibuster is possibly going to be required. My objection to your position has always been that the President has got nothing to do with it.

And I’ve addressed that several times.

Senators will use their own calculus on it no matter what.

And nothing anyone else does can change their calculus?

Seems kinda weird, especially because that’s exactly how politics works.

I personally think that a Presidential candidate running on a promise to change the rules of procedure in another branch kind of bullshit too.

I don’t think anyone’s promising anything, but just saying it has to be done.

Warren is a Senator. Howzabout she gets rid of Senate procedure she doesn’t like while she’s in there.

Seriously??

53-47 GOP majority. Mitch McConnell.

[CarnalK]

I know you’ve addressed that several times. I am, unbelievably, unconvinced. Massively unconvinced. I think this whole line of argument is idiotic. And that impression is buffed by the fact that you didn’t answer my question as to whether Obama or Trump had publicly endorsed earlier filibuster killings.

[septimus]

Here, in order, are the eleven persons most likely to become President of the United States in 2021, according to Betfair:
Trump 41.8% 78.1% 74.5%
Warren 22.5% 46.3% 41.5%
Biden 10.3% 18.2% 20.5%
Buttigieg 5.2% 10.2% 15.5%
Sanders 5.1% 8.0% 12.5%
Clinton 2.3% 5.5% -
Yang 2.3% 3.4% 9.5%
Pence 1.7% 5.6% 7.0%
Haley 1.7% 6.4% 9.5%
Harris 0.7% 1.5% 4.5%
Romney 0.3% 2.0% 7.5%

The second number is the chance to win his/her party nomination according to Betfair; the third number is the same chance according to Predictit.

Good news, I think, is that if Trump does NOT win his party’s nomination, the D will probably win the general. (Haley, for example, has over 6% chance to be the GOP nominee, but less than 2% to become Potus.)

Chances of Democratic control per Predictwise:
72% House of Reps
53% White House
36% Senate

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

I know you’ve addressed that several times. I am, unbelievably, unconvinced. Massively unconvinced. I think this whole line of argument is idiotic. And that impression is buffed by the fact that you didn’t answer my question as to whether Obama or Trump had publicly endorsed earlier filibuster killings.

I don’t answer questions. I respond to counterarguments.

[RTFirefly]

Sorry I’m late with this week’s installment, but yesterday was a busy evening. In a good way, but still didn’t leave me any time for putting this together.

Anyhow, other than one Fox News poll from October 6-8 which is about to age out, everything is pretty new. Survey USA polled just before last Tuesday’s debate, and Quinnipiac and CNN-SSRS have polled since, and that’s just the A-rated polls; B-rated Emerson and Ipsos have also polled since, as well as our weekly B-rated YouGov, Morning Consult, and C-rated HarrisX.

Looks like Warren really took a hit as a result of Debate #4 - remember how people were saying the polling would basically be frozen in place since everyone was focused on impeachment? Well, not so much. And it looks like Sanders and Harris profited from her loss, proving me wrong in what I said about them last week. Anyway, here’s the numbers:

Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25  10/2  10/9 10/15 10/24

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4  27.6  26.2  28.7  28.4
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5  22.4  25.0  25.4  21.6
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8  16.4  15.3  13.6  16.9
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8   5.6   5.2   6.0   6.2
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2   5.1   4.2   4.4   5.5
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0   2.9   3.1   2.4   2.2
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4   2.4   1.6   2.1   2.4
Klobuchar                                                                     2.0

Everyone else < 2.0

And the comparison with the other averages:

Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             28.4  27.2  25.0
Warren            21.6  21.8  24.0
Sanders           16.9  17.3  15.0
Buttigieg          6.2   7.0   7.0
Harris             5.5   5.3   5.0
Yang               2.2   2.5   3.0
O'Rourke           2.4   2.3   2.0
Klobuchar          2.0   2.0   2.0

As you can see, Amy Klobuchar has joined the 2% bunch. Out of the white noise at last, at least by the standards of this scorecard.

[kaylasdad99]

@CarnalK

Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, “getting climate change legislation through Congress” that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.

I wouldn’t be terribly upset if Yahweh were to Rapture every Republican voter on November 2, 2020. If He did, I wouldn’t even be upset if He sent them all back on November 4, with an explanation that it had been a Sitzprobe.

[kaylasdad99]

@RTFirefly

The words are in English, but…

And the filibuster??

I mean, that’s my freakin’ point here: even if the Dems win everything next year, nothing gets through Congress as long as the filibuster is in place.

Exactly two current Democratic candidates - Warren and Harris - have said that there are circumstances where they would push to kill the filibuster. Biden and Sanders have said they wouldn’t. Everyone else either is in favor of keeping the filibuster, or has avoided the subject.

If the Dems want to do something about climate change, they need to kill the filibuster. The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won’t.

So if the Dem nominee is someone who wants to keep the filibuster, it doesn’t matter if they win, it doesn’t matter if the Dems win the Senate too. Nothing will be done about climate change.

Is there a hole in that logic, or not? If there is, what is it? Any criticism of my position that doesn’t address those questions is a waste of pixels.

Does the President get to decide whether the Senate retains the filibuster?

TIL, I guess…

[RTFirefly]

@kaylasdad99

Does the President get to decide whether the Senate retains the filibuster?

TIL, I guess…

I feel like I’m repeating myself:

The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won’t.

[CarnalK]

@RTFirefly

I don’t answer questions. I respond to counterarguments.

Is that how you roll? Ok. Your insistence that the president is required to back a filibuster removal is not supported by the history of actual filibuster kills. You have no evidence whatsoever that a Presidential push for filibuster removal has any import and there’s evidence that it is not required.

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

Is that how you roll? Ok. Your insistence that the president is required to back a filibuster removal is not supported by the history of actual filibuster kills. You have no evidence whatsoever that a Presidential push for filibuster removal has any import and there’s evidence that it is not required.

Gimme a break. The Senate’s long had a culture of resistance to change. Mitch McConnell’s been able to overcome this on the GOP side, but there’s been plenty of evidence that many Dem Senators would rather restore all the traditions that McConnell has already axed for GOP partisan benefit than to keep on going for their own benefit.

I shouldn’t have to explain this baseline reality to you like you were a newcomer from Burkina-Faso.